(g/L/ WW Writ Pefition (U.A. 227) No.5539 of 2009 PETITIONER: Chhattisgarh State Wakf Deféndant No‘l Board, Through its: Chief Executive O$cexy Dr. SVA. Famoqui, aged about 4-9 years, Sjo Shri A.S. Farooqui, (3—12, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (CG) -Vcrsus~ ‘1. Raiique Ahmed Khan, aged about 79 years, S/o Late Haji Mahammed Massod Khan, Resident of Jum' Line, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG) At present Flat No.113 Utkarsh Niman, Mangalwan' Bazar, Sada! Nagpur (MH) Defendant No.2 8r. 3 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaxy, Department of Dharmik Nyas 6a Dharmswa’ D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur {CG} 3. Intezamia Committee, Jama Masjid (Wald) Bima, Bilaepur, through Mohammad $harif, aged about 72 years, S/o Iaie Ghafoor kahn, resident of Om Nagar, Jarha hhata, Bilaspur (CG) Vice President and Authorized Representative and Patron of Intezamja Committee RESPONDENTS: PlamtiE Present: Shri GS. Agxawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri K.R. Nair and Shri Prateek Shanna, Advocates for the petiiioner. 8111i Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for the State; respondent No.2. Advocate for respondent No. 1. Si e Bench: Hon’ble shri Dhirendra Mishra J. ORAL ORDER (3— 1 1-2009) 1. The petitioner by the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has impugned the order of Amiexure-P] 1 paseed by the Chhattisgarh Wakf Tn'bunal, Rajpur, whereby the appiication preferred by the petitioner] defendant No. 1 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the . 7 r / g? ¢ Code of Civil Pmcedura (for short ‘the Code’) for amending Written statcment has bcen mjected. 2. Shri G.S.. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appoan'ng for the petitioner submitted that the. peh'tioner Vida his application of Annexure-P/é proposed to amend the written statement to incorporate the pleading to rebut the claim of title by defendant No.3 to the suit property in its written statement and to plead that notice dated 28—3-90 sent by the plaintin' was received in the odice of the Board on 27—8-90. The above amendments were pmposed to further elaborate and c1a11‘fy the pleadings in the written statements. The proposed amendment does not change the natnre and original smnd of the defendant in any way in its written statement. The trial Court ought to have allowed the amendment. 0) On the other hand, Shri Manindta Shrivastava, teamed senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submitted that the suit was med befom t; . " the District Court, Bilaspur in the year 1990 and the same was j transferred to the Wakf Tribunal. Respondent No.1 was‘exam‘med on commission due to his ill~health. Written statement was filed by the Board in the year 1992 and the issues were flamed in the year 1995, The plaint was amended in the year 2005 and. accordingly, consequential amendment was also canied out by the Board in the year 2008. The plaintih‘ has closed its \case after examining its witnesses. Considering these aspects and also considering that no issue has been fxamed on the basis of pleading of defendant Intezamia Committee, Bilha, the Tribunal has rejected the application. 4. Heard learned counsel forithe parties. Perused the impugned order and the pleadings of the respective parties and the documents annexed thereWith. i ‘- p'i. / I %/”M 5. The petitioner/defendant proposed 2 amendments in their written statmnents. By the first amendment, the petitioner sought .to incorporate a pleading that the newly added defendant Intezamia Committee, Bilha in its wn'tten statement is illegally claiming its right by describing the suit property as Wakf property. The trial Court has rejected the above amendment with an observation that no issue has been framed on the basls of pleadmg of Intezaxma Comnuttee and therefom the peutioner cannot be pernntted to amend the Wntten statement on the hams of pleading of defendant No.3. 6. So far as amendment to incorporate the date of mceipt of notice sent by the plaintiff is concerned, the fact sought to be pleaded. by way of amendment dates back to the year 1990. It was Well within. the knowledge of the petitioner firstly at the time of filing of written statement and moving amendment application which was allowed in the year 2008. Even otherwise, the onus of establishing that the suit was hled after due notice to the petitioner/defendant No.1 in accordance with law, is. on the plainuH and no prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioner on account of rejection of prayer for amendment to incorporate the pleading Iegarding the date of reeeipt of notice and written statement. 7. The above reason assigned by the trial Court for rejecting the prayer for amendment is proper and the same does not call for any interference. 8. In the instant case; it is not in dispute that the suit is pending since 1990, the trial has already commenced and the plaintiE has closed its evidence and the matter is hxed for the evidence of the defendant. The petitioner‘could not. demonstrate as to what prejudice is likely to be caused to him on account of rejection of application for amendment. I V w j Q7) ‘ It is satled law that jurisdiction under Articie 227 is to be exercised sparingly, only to keep the subordinate Courts and Tribunals Within the bourlds of their authon‘ty to see that they obey the law and not for correcting mere emrs. The power may be exercised, in cases occasioning grave injustice or failuie of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure ofjustice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamount to overstepping the limits ofjurisdiction. 10.For the aforesaid reason, I am of the opinion that ieained trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error thereby occasioning failure ofjustice warrann'ng inference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11.111 the result, the petition is Without any substance, the same deserves ‘ to be and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itseli Sd/— Dhireadra Mishra‘, Judge Barve