JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.10.2022 passed by District Judge, Surajpur in Civil Appeal (unregistered) between Shivnandan and others Vs. Ramkaya and others, whereby the application preferred by the respondents for amendment in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been allowed.

2. Shri Raja Sharma, Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents No.1 to 5 (appellants therein) had preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Surajpur. The said appeal was barred by limitation hence the same was accompanied by the application for condonation of delay. Thereafter, the appellants have filed the application for amendment in the application for condonation of delay in which objection was duly raised by the petitioners herein. However, the Court below allowed their application ignoring the fact that amendment application was filed belatedly and further provisions for amendment as provided in Order 6 Rule 17 CPC do not provide for amendment except in the plaint and written statement, which is bad in law and the same deserves to be quashed.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order of the Court below and document annexed with the petition.

4. Time and again it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. It is also well settled principle that the Courts are mean to do substantial justice between the parties and the technical rules or procedure should not given precedence over doing substantial justice. Justice according to law does not merely mean technical justice but means that law has to be administered to advance justice. To achieve such goal, the Civil Procedure Code has given a wide power specifically in Section 153 of CPC that the Court may at any time, and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit; and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding. Apart from such power, Section 151 CPC also gives the inherent powers to the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

5. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the approach adopted by the trial Court in the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and the same does not call for any interference by this Court invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition being sans merit dismissed in limine.