HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pritinker. Diwaker, Writ Petition (227) No. 2,159 of 2.0.09, PETITIONERS y 1. Mur‘ari Mishra, S/o, Shri Subhash Defendants before Mishra, aged aboutr33 years the trial, court 2. Govind Mishraz Slo Shri Subhash Mishra, aged about 3G years, Both Rlo Anand Nagar, Raipur, Tah & Distt. Ra§pur (C.G.) Versus 1. Sangay Kumar Kanda, S/o Shri Mohan Lal Kanda, aged abou‘l 41 years. 2. Smt. Kavita Kanda, Wlo Shri Samay Kanda, aged about 38 years Both Rlo Noida "U.P. through Attorney holder Addtendra' Shukta, S/o Late Ramashankar‘ Shukia; R/o Shankar' Nagar, Khamardih, Raipur' Tah a. Distt. Raipur (co) 3‘ De Tanu. akrabonh; Slo Shr RC. Chakrabort, age about 3 years, R/o Shayamv Nagar Raiput; Tah & Distt. Raipur (C'.G.) . State of Chhattisgarh through Cottector Raipur, Tah & Distt. Raipur > «16.) Shri L.C., Dash, coUnsel for the petitioners. Shri Pankaj Shrivasta'v'a, Pane: Lawyer for thew State/respondent No.4. WRIT PEEITION UNDER‘ARTIGLE227 OF THE CGNSTITUTtON‘GF tNBtA / ORDER (27.34.2G09)’ By way at this petition, the petitioners are challengingthe order dated 05.94.2Q08 passed by 12‘“ Civil Judge, mass-H, v Chy i y d 3 Raipur in Civil Suit No.27—A/2QGS; By the order impugnedthe’ application of the petitioners/defendantswseeking amendment in the reply of application far, grant, of temporary-iniunction has been rejected It hasbeen submittedby the. counsetefor theipetitionersr the suit was filedlin othe. year- 2Q05andithe, petitioners have filed-reply to the iniunction application on 06122005, andthe application for amendment. in the reply hasbeen filed on 2.1.0.1 2005. On being pointedly asked; counsel for the petitioner has no answerto the. proviso of Order 6 Rule17 oftheCode of Civil Procedure andhe submits that he cannot justify the, saidxamendment; Couit below after considering all - the facts and circumstancesof the case has; exercised. its'iurisdictionr and has , passed the order, impugned. There is‘no error; apparent on the > I faoe. of the, record calling for an interferencewith the impugned order. Civil Suit is pending sincer2005. Counseifor. the petitioners submits that there isno. progress. in the; suit. It is expected. from; the. court below to decideithe suit itseltexpeditiously preferably within 8 months from the date of receipt otcopy of this. order., Needless to say that due. co-operation shall beoffered by the parties for early disposal of the suit- With these observations? the. petitionstands. disposed, of. Sdl— pritinke' D Sudge ‘wakef \\ r ‘ /~/r