^'•an ^^^^ F'?.-.-. --.. ^*^'^ ^J tj ^^ l'^^? ^-r'-'*"-^-'^ ^ ^^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P.(C) No •3 /2001S ^i^"^^i:^^t^iB:Ei ^'siFsr^^'-^"-^&-~-SS..^i PETITIONER PLAINTIFF A-^ ln ^i^^"" ....."M^> rtS--" .•:.'- <•••• RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS Rajendra Singh Chawla, S/o. Shri Diwan Sngh Chawla. aged about 43 years, Presently R/o. 15/8, Punjabi Bag Extension, New Delhi, Through : Power of Attorney, Gurdeep Singh Chawla. S/o. Shri Devendra Singh Chawla. aged about 30 years, R/o. Ashoka Tower, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS :1. Smt. Rashmi Motwani, W/o. Shri r' Kanhaiya Lal Motwani, aged about 42 years, R/o. Avanti Vihar Colony, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Sushil Mandhani, S/o. Late Dadumal Mandhani, R/o. D-27, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil and DistrictRaipur(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA f'^^.. 'l ^sSf^ 1 ^^-^" y ^ sf '^. ./ / ^?-".^/ t>' ^' mCH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (C} No. 367/2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Rajendra Singh Qiawla Versus Smt. Rashmi Motwani and another Appearance: Shri A.K. Prasad, counsel for the petitioner: Miss. Morisha Chhattri, counsel for the respondents. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (27.01.2011) The petitioner/plaintiff has called in question the order passed by the Trial Court partly rejecting his application under Order 6 Rule 17 ofCPC. (2) The petitioner, through his attomey holder, preferred the suit in January, 2007 seeking a decree for declaration oftitle and pennanent injunction with respect to land bearing khasra No. 325 situated at Village Telibanda, Raipur. Petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 ofCPC on 20al March, 2007 i.e. hardly tw'o months after the date offilingofthe suit, seeking amendment in the plaint to plead and pray for, amongst other things, a relief for recovery of possession of the suit land. The application was objected by the respondents mainly on the ground that the plaintiffhas not purchased the land bearing khasra No. 325, therefore plea regarding the said ^ T ..<t!%""-"";"^- ,^''5!5'' '« %."",,../ s '%.. '^^ 2. khasra No. or recovery ofpossession ofthe said land is malafide and should not be allowed. Leamed Trial Court rejected the application after observing that the plea proposed to be raised in the amendment application is inconsistent with the eariier' plea and also that it changes the nature ofthe suit. (3) Admittedly, the khasra number ofthe lands mentioned in para 2 ofthe plaint as khasra No.325 has subsequently been allowed to be corrected as khasra No.323 by order passed by the Trial court on 3/02/2009 granting the petitioners prayer for amendment. In the subject application under Order 6 Rule 17 it was stated that the plaintiff has been dispossessed after filing of the suit and thus the amendment is based on subsequent events. Leamed counsel for the petitioner has thus argued that the amendment should have been allowed by the Trial Court in its entirety. On the other hand, leamed counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order submitting that the plaintiff himself was guilty of not mentioning correct khasra number in the plaint and that in any case the nataire of suit would change, therefore the amendment has rightly been rejected. (4) In so far the change in the nature ofsuit is concerned, it is to be seen that the plaintiff has raised a pleading that he has been dispossessed after filing of the suit. The question as to whether the plaintiff was not in possession of the land at time of the filing of the suit or has been dispossessed subsequently is a question to be decided ,;fci '; ...-'ERSi. t^^^S^f-""'"^? 3' o\ in the suit and the defendants would be free to raise their plea to this efFect and contest the suit on this ground also. The prayer for amendment was made barely two months after filing of the plaint, therefore the Trial Court should have allowed the prayer for grant of amendment in its entirety. (5) In the result, fhe petition succeeds and the impugned order is set aside, instead it is directed that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 ofCPC preferred by the petitioner on 20th March, 2007 is allowed in its entirety. The petitioner shall be permitted to cajry out the amendment and the defendants shall also be permitted to plead and carry out consequential amendment raising all such pleas both factual and legal as available to them in law. (6) The petition stands allowed. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge r'