-PtIKIll E IIFNCN l l^i.liL^ V^5^^'ft ^- ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (ART.227) NO.f664oF 2010 PETITIONER APPELLANT ^ '^.r"".; \^SS!&- ^SS^'"""" Pukhraj Golcha, S/o Shri Chandanmal, Aged about 72 years, Sarafa Vyapari, R/o Sadar Bazar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^""" VERSUS RESPONDENT RESPONDENT Anand Kumar Jain, S/o Shri Gyanchand Jain Aged about 30 years, R/o Sadar Bazar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ,\° ^. HIQH COURT OF CHHATTSSOARH AT BILASPUR Slnale Beiich: Hon'ble Shrl Justice Prashant Kumar Nishra PETiTlONER APPELLANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT Writ Petition (227) No.1004AtftlO Pukhraj Golcha Versvs Anand Kumar Jaln Shri Sumesh Bajaj, counsel tor the petitioner. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE GONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORALORDER (11.03.2010) After passlrig of the jwigment ami decree. by the tria} Court ths piaintiff moved an application for amendment in the decree wlllch granted by the triat Gourt. Agalnst the said order of the trial Couft the petiticmer hereln had preferred W.P.(227) No. 4166/09 whteh dteposed of by a consent order on 25th November, 2009 (Annexure P/5). The order passed by the trial Court amending the decree set-aslde and tiberty was reserved to the parties to grlevance before the flrst appellate Coyrt by way of filsng applteatjon tor amendment in the decree. (2) The respondent thereafter has moved an appjlcation Order 41 Rute 22 wlth Section 33 arwl 151 of C.P.C. the first appetlate Court seeking amendment of the decree. (3) By the subject application the petltloner prayed before the flrst Court that the appllcatlon moved .by the in the flrst appeiiate Court for amendment of decree be before hearing the fsrst appeal flnalSy. The tirst appellate Court has @ .-. ^L— refused to accede to the prayer m^ide by the pet'rtioner and has directed that the prayer made by the respondent/piaintiff for amendlng the decree shall be consldered at the tlme of final hearing of the first appeai itsetf. (4) CounseS for the petltloner, rel^ng on AIR 1962 Patna 166 submlts that if the applteation is not decided before hearing ths first appeat he does not know as to whlch decree he wllS uitimstejy be required to argue against, and as such it will be highly Inconvenjent and prejudicsal to his case in the first appeai. He atso that if the applteation ss granted he cannot move to hlsher Court for challer^ing the sald grant of applicatlon by the first Court at the tlme of passing of the finai order. (5) Having heard learned counsel tor the pet'rtioner, thls Court Is of the opinion that the flrst appetlate Court has not committed any error of iaw or jurisdtetion by rejecting the prayer made by the petjtioner. Ordjnarily when any prayer regardlng amendment in the or an appEication ynder Order 41 Rule 27 or under Order 41 22 of C.P.C. te made before the appetlate Court exerclsing under Section 96 or usider SectEon 1W of C.P.C., these prayers are declded aiong with and at the time of finai hearing. Wlth to the petitloner's contention that he wiSI be precivded from chatlenglng the order granting amendment in the decree, m any hlgher Court, suffce jt would be to say that the sasd right is not a vested right. If any eyentuatity arises, both the parties would be free to It as a In the second appeal. (6) Slnce the first appetlate Court has no.t decided anything by the |lmpugned order, the present is not a fit case for Interference in -y exercise of power unider Article 227 of the Constitution of !ndia, the pet'rtion fails and Is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge rf