c^ ^^/ SIMGLEBENCH^ Ri" IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION (C) N0; ,-<> -A) /-> OF 2008 PETITIONER '-•L.A^-'^- RESPONDENTS =t^G ^^^ ^^^v" / Prasiddha Narayan Suigh Chauhan, aged about 71 years, S/o late Shri Maan Pratap Singh Chauhan, Occupation - Pensioner/Agriculturist, R/o village - Orgai, TahsU- Sonhat, District Korea (C.G.) VERSUS Shri Shashi Kumar Singh S/o late Raghunath Sharan Singh, aged about 58 years, Occupation - Teacher, R/o Schoolpara, Baikunthpur, District Korea(C.G.).' Smt. Preeti Devi Singh w/o Shri Rambadan Sitigh, aged about 40 years, Occupatioh - Agriculturist and house wife, R/o vUlage Orgai, Tahsil Sonhat, District Korea (C.G.). 3. State of Chhattisgarh, through CoUector- Korea, Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.). 4. Ramprasad s/o Hriday Lal, aged about 45 years, OGcupation- Agriculturist R/o village - Telimuda, Post Tahsil Sonhat, District Korea (C.G.) 5. Bihari Lal s/o Heera Lal; aged about 37 years, Occupation- Agriculturist, R/o village Orgai, Post & TahsU Sonhat, District Korea (C.G.). ~ss a I'l ^. •'v^ i^} P^Syf ^*i'<%^^ £». Ram Singh S/o not kaown, aged about 40 years, Agriculturist, R/o viUage Mahuwapara (Sonhat) Post SE TahsU Sonhat, District Korea (C.G.j. 'T Bal Kisan s/o Bhaganraai, aged about 45 years, Agricultiirist, R/o vUlage Orgai, Post & TahsU Sonhat, Dista-ict Korea (C.O.). t 8. Awadh Kumar S/o Bhaganrani, agedj about 40 years, Agficulturist, R/o viUage Orgai, Post & Tahsil Sonhat, DistrictKorea (C.G.) /9. Naresh Kumar S/o KawalSai, aged about 32 years, R/o viUage Qrgai, Post 85 Tahsil Son^at, District Korea (C.G.) 10 < Miss. P. Ekka, Presiding Officer ofth^i court of 2nd Civil Judge Class-1, Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) :~,¥ ^y WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^.' ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition fCtNo. 3375 of2008 PETITIONER '<•- : Prasiddha Narayan Singh Chauhan VERSUS RE8PONDENTS : Shri Shashi Kumar Singh & others WKTT PETTHON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTTrUTION OF INDIA (8B: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aearwal.J.) Present : Shri Pramod Venna, Sr. Advoeate with Sfari Raghvendra Verma, Advocate forfhe petitioner. Shri CJKRao, Advocate ferrespondent NQ. 1,2 and 5 to9. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 02.02.2011) ¥ 1. Legality and propriety oftfae part oforder dated 17.07»2007, passed by the IInd Civil Judge, Class I, Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea, in Civil Suit No. 45-A/2005, whereby the court below disallowed the amendmentsought by the petitioner in the plaintvide para 5,6,7 & 8 ofamendment application, is under assail in the instant petition. 2. Brieffacts oftfae case as projected by the petitioner are that: the petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit elaming relief of deelaration and title and to declare that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property. On 27.10.2006, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to,incorporate certain amendment in the plairit on Ihe ground that tiie defendants/respondents have dispossessed him on 18.072005. The frial court vide order ~~ impugned allowed the amendment sought vide para 3 ofamendment Ei..fe*iri ^ application but disallowed the amendment sought vide para 5,6,7 & 8 ofthe said application on the ground thatit changes the nature of the suit. 1<> A-*. Shri Pramod Verma, leamed senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as according to the plaintiff the defendants have dispossessed him diiring the pendency of suit on 18.07.2005 then it was necessaiy for him to claim relief of possession over the suit property and in a suit for declaration oftitle, the relief of possession will not change the nature and character of the suit, and therefore, the court below has illegally disallowed the above paras ofhis amendment application. On the other hand, Shri CJK Rao, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent wouM submit that tiie amendment h^ rigfatly been disallowed by the court below inasmuch as, the defendants are in possession ofthe suitproperty sinceinception. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused tfae order impugned. The suit iastituted by the petitioner was forthe relief of declaration and title and to declare that the petitioner is in possession ofthe suit property and according to him during the pendency of suit the defendants have dispossessed hiin, therefore, based on subsequent event, the amendment was sought by seeking reliefofpossession of f K. il' $•:„! 1 su3 'St °\^ the suit property and for mesne profil, therefore, it cannot be said that Ihe same will change the natore and character ofthe suit. 7. The trial court has allowed the amendment sought by the petitioner vide para 3 of his amendment application and there.by allowed the petitioner to plead "dispossession" during pendency of suit, then how the amendment sought claiming reliefs based on dispossession can be disallowed. The order, disalloWing the amendment sought by the petitioner vide amendment para 5,6,7 & 8 ofthe application is patently illegal. The same deserves to be and is hereby set aside. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and tiie order impugned dated 17.07.2007, whereby the amendment sought in para 5,6,7 & 8 ofthe application was disallowed, is quashed. The above referred amendment is allowed. The trial court shall permit the petitioner to incorporate the above amendment in the plaint. Thereafter, the trial court shall make aii order for retum ofthe plaint for its presentation before the appropriate court as after amendment the suit may exceed - its pecuniaryjurisdiction. No order asto costs. Sdl- ^^^ 3ud&e Sahu