<*» t IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR _ Writ Petition (227) NQ^?"-?(<) / 2008 Petitioner/ 1. Anil Kumar 42 Yrs., Plaintiffs r2.Vinod Kumar 39 Yrs., <^. Jitesh Kumar 36 Yrs., ^. Rampal 36 Yrs., ,,5. Pravin Kumar 30 Yrs., Shv^m^al27yrs. /(^ x^My ^XA^C9°' 4^ 7\^ry' 4^,. ^ ^-<w Respondents / Defendants ladhoPrasad ^-^ Divya Bai 35 Yrs., x^0 wd./o Sunil Kumar, ^ r^^Lusubai 58 Yrs., ,0 wd./o Madho Prasad All R/o Vill. Pandariya, PS & PO Gandai, Distt. Rajnandgaon VERSUS Bai 55 yrs., wd./o Radheshyam Z Pushpa Bai 50 Yrs., D/o Paklu Sav w/o Prabhat Kumar 3^ Chavilal 45 Yrs., S/o Narayan 4, Shatruhan 46 Yrs., S/o Derha Sahu 5_ Anuj Sahu 48 Yrs., S/o Bijul Sahu 6^ Uram Sahu 42 yrs., Ferha Sahu 7_ Bharat Sahu 47 Yrs., S/o Derha 5, Ramesh Sahu 40 Yrs., S/o Mangalu Sahu 9, Mukesh Sahu 38 yrs., S/o Keju 1 to 9 R/o Vill. Pendarwani, PO Gandai, Distt. Rajnandgaon MState of Chhattisgarh, By Collector, Rajnandgaon PETITION UNDER ART. 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION HLGH^OURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No.5750 of 2008 Anil Kumar and others versus Dharamshila Bai and others ORDER Postfor 12-3-2010 Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge '^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No.5750 of 2008 Petitioners Respondents versus Anil Kumar and others Dharamshila Bai and others Present: Shri Raja Sharma, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sushil Dubey, counsel for respondentsNo.1 to 9. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.10. Writ Petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India ORDER (Passed on 17.^ March, 2010) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 1-9-2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial Court rejecting the petitioners/plaintiffs' application under Order 6 Rule17 oftheCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 for permitting them to amend the plaint. 2. The plaintiffs have preferred a suit for declaration of their title and permanent injunction as also for a declaration that defendant No.1 is not entitled to mutate his name on the basis of the consent-deed of defendants No.2 to 9. The suit was filed on or about 30th September, 2003. 3. The plaintiffs moved the subject application under Order 6 Rule pl7 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Annexiire P-4) on 13-8-2008 ...-.^" /7 ..j -•C^,^"' J M ^ <scy ^^» -2-— ^L to amend the plaint to incorporate the contents of the consent accorded by the concerned defendants in favour of defendant No.1. 4. The defendants objected to the said application by submitting that the application has been filed at the stage of recording of evidence only to delay the proceedings. 5. The trial Court has rejected the application. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned trial Court should have allowed the application in order to allow the petitioners/plaintiffs to raise pleadings which are required to prove their case. 6. On perusal of the documents appended with the writ petition, it appears that the observation made by the trial Court that plea regarding consent-deed (^T?^-^ is already available in paragraph 3 of the plaint and that the entire contents of the document are not required to be pleaded. The order also reflects t(iat the matter was already fixed for recording evidence of the plaintiffs. 7. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidyabai and others vs. Padmalatha and another, (2009) 2 SCC 409 to the effect that after commencement of trial, i.e., after framing of issues and fixing the case for evidence, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to allow amendment unless it is found that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised th^ pleading which he is now trying to raise by way of amendment. In the present case, the entire suit is based on the consent-deed, therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs were not aware of the facts which are now sought to be pleaded. r .^ -3- 8. In the opinion of this Court, the trial Court has not committed any error ofjurisdiction in rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __ Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge