(©(' 1. 2. HIGH COU&&OE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON (22'7) No. 10 of2009 PETmONERS PLAINTIFFS : 1. Khem Sin^hi S/o Brij Lal Verma, Aged aboiit 55 yeare, 2. Hari Lal S/o Heera Lal Vemm, aged about 80 yeans. Bofh occupation - Agriculturist, R/o village - Tel^, P.0. Anandgaon, Tahsil Beria, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State ofChhattisgarh, tfarou^i Collector, Durg (C.G.) DEFENDANTS 2. Sub Divisional Qfficer, Saja/Beria, Head Qffice Saja, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (C.G.) 3. Smt. Geeta Vemia, Satpanch, Gram Panchayat Telga, Tah. Berla, Dist. Durg (C.G.) 4. Gram Panchayat Telga, Throug^i Secretary, Gram Panchayat Telga, Tahsil - Berla, Distt. Durg (C.G.) WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF DC5IA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate forthe petitioners. Shri Bhaskar payasi, Panel Uwyer fortiie State/respoadent No. 1 and 2. ORALORDER (Passed on 06W day of January, 2009) By this petition, the petition©rimpu^is fhe order dated 11.12.2008 (Amiexure P/5) whereby fhe applications filed on 15.09.2008 under Qr^r 6 Rule 17 oflfae Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'tiie CPC') for amendment of the pleadings^ and application under Order 7 Rule 14 read with section 151 ofdie CPC, fortaking documents on record, were dismissed. The facts, in nutshell are fhat the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for damages of crops in the Court of Civil Judge, Class H, Bemetara, District Durg, on the ground fhat the petitioners-plaintiffs are relations and owaers of Khasra No. 505/3 area 7.60 acres (3.076 hectares) sitoiated at village Telga, Patwari Halka No. 139 (new Patwari Halka No. 26) Revaiue Circle Anandgwn, Tehsil B^la, District Durg. The Khasra number ofthe said land has been reuumbered as Khasa-a No. 1465, 1466, 1467 and 1469. In tiie pending case, tfae petitioners- plaintifFs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 rea4 witfa section 151 ofthe CPC on 15.09.2008 seeking amendment to fhe extent that on setflem^rt (rflands, fhe total ofarea as stated m fhe plaint has come do^m. ff ^ added to Khasra numbers mentioned in the plaint< the total area would be 2.69 r"" '^ 1 ra%%% i \^^/ Amit hectares. The petitioners-plamtiffs have jRufher sougfet am^idment ofthe relief clause by seeking declaration and permanent mjunctioa 3. The Court below, after havmg heard leamed coiinsel for fhe parties, found that Ifae amendment sought to be made m fhe pending suit would change the aatore of the suit, hence, fhe same was not granted. Thus, Ihe application under Order 6 Rule 17 ofthe CPC was rejected. The otiier application fikd under Or^r 7 Rule 14 ofthe CPC was also rejected on fhe @*ound tiiat the petiti(mers-plamtiffs have failed to give sufficient reasons for not filing the said documents at the time of filing of fhe suit, when admittedly they wwe m possession of Ae saad documents. 4. Bemg aggrieved, fhe petitioners have preferred this petition under Arflcle 227 of the Constitution oflndia on several otiier grounds without raasing the gyound tfiat tfae amendment sou^ht to be made would not change the nature offhe siiit 5. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties, perased tfae pleadings aiad documents appended tfaereto. The fmdings recorded by tiie Court below m unexceptionable. If fhe petitioners-plaintififs are pemutted to add one more Khasra number and farther change the nature oftfie case by seeking deolOTation oftitle aiid permanent injunction which was not Ifae subject matter oftfae original suit, the very purpose would be defeated as this would be a complete new suit which changes fhe nature ofthe origmal suit. Tlais, the Courtbelow has rightly rejected both the q>plications and as such, no mterference is warranled, 6. For Ifae reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. No ocder asto costs. 7. Consequently, I.A. No. 1, for ad-uiterim relief, also stands dismissed. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge