HIQH COUE.T OF AT BILASPUH. SB : JU'STICB DlWAKE'l W.P. PBTiTIOMsK. DEFE NDANTS VsJsSS-i-S 1. RamlaJdiaji Soai, S/o. Late Jagat Sord, aged about 68 -•&"• v'ears 8< 2. KanhaH'a Soni, S./o. La'se •Jagat Soiii, E vcai's A31 bv ousuiessmaii, KaiaaiiiKgain, P.S. &, TahsiJ Distnct Sarguic iged about 62 occupaiaon- R'o. Town W&KL MO.V2, Ka.iiiatiujgailj, Mst. Mutri Devi (Xhutri Devij, ^'?7/-"j /.-* ? Qf.^ ??"-'n~>/~>?'T-?".';iT'T3 ^.s^-.-t-f VtT U^ V. iJ<~i.lA/ i\ CtjSLll^..LLdJ.^.L(,4.0. tJTU'iJEJ.^ aged about 55 vears, Occupation-Hoiisehold, R /o. 'i'own Kaiaaiiujgaa], WEirct No.12, P.S. &. Talisil Rsjltanuigarr;, District Sargiija ?nnft Mano Devi, D/o. Late Ramchandra Soni, agea about 40 . years, Occupation- Houseiiold, R/o. Ramaaujgarij, Distt. Sargu^a (Cg) & Vmage and P.S. Daudnagar, District Aurasigabad (Biaar) Shakz'iatala Devi, D/o. Late Ramchaadra Soai, aged about 35 years, Occupatioa Household, R/o. Raiaanujgaa], Talisil Pal, District Sai'guja (CG) and Vfflage aad P.S, Late.b.aT, o. District Lateliar (Jharlchaa.d) i<iraa Devi, D/o. Late Ranichaadra Soni, aged about 30 years, Occupation Houseliold, R/'o. Raaiaiiujgaoj, District Sarguja (CG) & Vilalge aid P.S. Daudnagar, DisGict Auraagabad (Bihar) Gita Devi, D/o. Late Rasichaiidra Soni, aged about 29 years, Occupatioa. Household, R/o. Rai&ai'l.ujgaiij, District SargTija I'CG) PB COBSTITUTIOSI Og- Shri A.K.Prasad, couiisel for fhe petiTioaers. Shri MaD.oj Psraajape & SIiri Vaibhav Qovardhsii, couiisel for tue respondents. (02.04.2009) Wifh the consent ofthe parties, fhe niatter is heard finally. TIie chaUenge of fhe petitioaers in. the iastaat writ petitioB. is the order dated 07,07.2008 passed ra Cwil Suit No. 24-A/2003 by Civil Judge Class-I, RamEaiujgaiy, DisTt. Sarguja aiid order dated 08.08.2008 passed ia. the saiae civU suit bv ti3.e coricemed Judge. Vide ord.sr dated 7.7.2008 (Asnexure P/1), the Court has given libeny to fne respondeiits/plaintiffs fhat if tlie plaintiffs' waiit'thev caa file a Ncszul Ifaksh^ wbereas vide order dated 08.08.2008, fhe Court has permitted fhe said amend3iient apphcation by which the map was filed. i;(ji?i 'i-:g'i .B-I!'' iE'Jh 'Sf'- "asi%!l»(i The contentioa of leamed couasel for the petLtionei-s is fhat fhis ain.endmeat application ouglit sot to have beeii Edlowed by tlie Court below as per Order 6 Rule 17 of the. Code of Civil Pr-ocedure because fh.e saine is not ia accordaace with fhe provfeioas of law govemiag (he pruiciple. of ti.ie said sectioa. Accordiag to Iiiin, earUer fhe aoiendm.ent to ftxe effect of partition. was sought to be inade, however, iu. CivQ Revision No. 324/2003, before tiiis Hon'ble Court, tlie same was withdrawn. The coiitentioa is fh.at by way of filiiig the spot inap, the plaintiffs waat to improve tlietr case and ui the ssid applicatioa as filed by fbe-m, there is no meati.on as it Iiad been ffled after due diligence aiid there is furQier no raention as to why this spot inap was aot £ledearlier. Leanied. counsel for fhe petitioners placed relian.ee npon the decisions of the Apex Court reported in 3005(6) ?CC 344, Salswi A&vocste Beur Assova.tStien., T.N. 7s. Union. of 2n0.is. & (2008) S SCC 117, Chfsnder Keatta. Ze.nsa.l 7s. Sts^lrsder Slngh Anand. On fhe other haiid, conterition of Shri Parajijape, counsel for Qie respoQdents is fh.at tliough tlis appUcatioa ra.ay iiot have toeen drafted in a veiy speciiic ra.aiiuer, yet no prejudice is goiag to csa.se to fhe defeadaa.t, if tlie amendmeut is aBowed. He furtber submits tliat the defenda&ts have been permitted to cany out fhe consequential aBiendruent ao.d Aerefore, fhe defesidants wffl. not suffer ajiy loss. He furti^er placed reliaace upon fae de'cision of the Apex Court reported ia. 2t ^»2Ke<»i I have heard counsel for the parties. The proposed ameadEient is ber-ig sought 'by the plauitilT j'i;..st to brm.g fhe spot map oa record &r proper m SSsSlif^ 'SSw'fK adiudication of tlie siiit aad fee defendants liave been permitted to cany out tlie coasequeB.tial aiaertdm.en.t. I have heai-d fhe rival coatentioa of fhe pardes. I do not find any infinnity m. the order im.p'ugued. No prejudice is likely to cause to fhe petitioner. Evea. if tlie aiuendiuent is there, tiie petitioners will have fuU opportunil^' to aiake tlieii' subiaissions on tlie basis of aniendiaent. T'te peti.tioa has no substari.ee. No prder as to costs. ^^ Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge Suguna