3^> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (2271 N0. 7701/2011 PBTITIONER Plaintiff RESPONDENTS Defendants VBRSUS 1. 2A, 2B. 2C. Heera Lal Shamia S/o Bhagatram Shamia, aged about 62 years, R/o Sector-3, Street No. 10, Quarter No. 1-F, Bhilai Tahsil 85 District Durg (C.G.). Maiiagiag Director, Bhilai Ispat Saayaatra, BhUai, TahsU & District Durg (C.G.). Shobha Sadhwaai S/o late Tejbhan Sadhwaai, aged about 47 yeai's, Abhishek Sadhwaai @ Sani Sadhwaai, S/o late Tejbhan Sadhwani, aged about 27 years, Prakash Sadhwaiu S/o late Tejbhan Sadhwaai, aged about 23 years. AU R/o Quarter No. 2/B, Street No. 13, Sector-1, Bhilai Nagar, TahsU & District Durg (C.G-.). M.L. Rafh (Retired einployee) Natioual Saviag Department, Bhilai, R/o Quarter No. 33, A.T. Typed Aveuue-C, Sector-1, Bhilai Nagar, TaIisU & Distdct Durg (C.G.). WRIT PETITIQN UNDBR ARTICLB 227 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hoa?ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri I Lakra, Advocate for fh.e petitioner, Respondents not noticed. ORDBR 3. (Passedoa 16/12/2011) By this petition under Article 227 of fhe Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the legaUty aad propiiety of the order dated 4/5/2011 passed by 5th CivU Judge Class-2, Durg C.G. ia civil siiit No. 10A/2010 whereby application for amendment fUed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed substaatiatly on flie ground tliat appUcation has not been verified. Order 6 Rule 17 ofthe Code ofCivU Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code5) provides provisions for amendnient ia pleadtag but it does y^ ^^^ss^ r lt. •• ^..J/ ^isas^^" €j- not provide need of verification of such appUcation, Consequently, by passiiig order Coiirt below has coniinitted an iUegality. 3. Order nnpugned penised. 4. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code relates to the aniendinent ia pleaduig which reads as follows:- 17. Asnendfnent of pleeiAingss' The Court. may at any stage of the proceedings altow eitherparty to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such ierms cvs may be jusi, and att such cmzendments shall be made as may he necessary for ihe purpose of determining the real questions in controversy betzveen the parties. Provided that no applicxztionfor cmnendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless ihe Court comes to the conclusion that in spiie of diie diligence, the party could not have raised the rnatter before the oommencement of triaL 5. As per Rule 17 of Order 6 of fhe Code party may amend his pleadiag ia such niaaner aad on such tenns as may be just As per Riile 17 of Order 6 of the Code party is not require to verify its application Uke pleadiag. Consequenfly, by disraissiag appUcatiou on fhe aforesaid ground Court below has coininitted ao. illegaMty. Issuaace ofnotice aad observance ofprocedural law would be fiiitile exercise. Consequenfly, petition is atlowed aad order iinpugned is hereby quashed, Court below shatl after provide opportunity of hearing to ftie parties passed fhe order afresh on laerits. No order as to costs. Zf Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^