r '^'i'-^ (. ^^- PETITIONERS DEFENDANTS BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR RESPONDENTS PLANTIFFS ''s^'" ^'y^"" ^ '% "~^" W.P (227)No. ^oS^ 12009 : 1. Nanakram Vadhwani S/o. Shri Ballumal Vadhwani, aged about- 55 years, R/o. C-26, Sector-1, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) / 2. Beburam S/o. Nanakram Vadhwani, aged about- 38 years, Proprietor- Mahesh Provision Stores, Shahid Hemu Colony Ward, Beside Monu Hotel, Pandri, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1.: Dr. Bramhanand Lalwani S/o. late Dr. Gurumukh Das Lalwani, aged about- 54 years, 2. Ajay Kumar Lalwani S/o. Dr. Bramhanand Lalwani, aged about- 28 years, Both R/o. Lakhe Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil and District- Raipur (C.G.) ..."•'^ ^^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. T 3?I^T^Fl^lN? ^l? 5»??^[iP?N? -^^ ^it^id^, '®Tl1<H4s<o, [Gl<rtl'Hli< ^.>^>.C^2.........?*SO... I?W?ITW^NR' 3T!^T •q?W C(^a(^) -^zoof 1-^lw^fe^^^ S.B. Hon'ble Shri Jystice N.K. 30.06.2009 Shri AK Prasad, Advocate | Feeling aggrieved by the (| passed by the VIth Civil Judge, Cl| whereby the application filed amendment has been dismissed added in the written statement b^ added by the petitioner/defendan also the objection regarding adm: taken atthetimeofevidence. Shri Prasad submits that a; plaint, vide order dated 25.11.200 ofamendment allowed in favour necessary for the petitioner to re wrf?T^ tJTO^"-^-fe^-d^STC ^^fw 31^1 sarwal ?or the petitioners. rder dated 08.04.2009 (Annexure P/l), iss I, Raipur, in civil suit No. 506-A/02, y the petitioner/defendant No. 2 for o^i the ground that the facts sought to be way of amendment have already been No. 2 vide order dated 08.03.2006 and sibility of the document can always be the plaintiff was allowed to amend his a date sybsequent to the date of order |of defendant No. 2 and therefore^ it is JLit the averments made by the plaintiff by way of said amendment and th^ application filed by the petitioner has wrongly been dismissed. ^^^"•e^VWV.S^VSW^'S^'1!^'"!!^' ^^T^^^^^Ii'^n^Rt^f^—!<-S/95—11/2008—1.00,000. —^- ^H^I^T'^TP^ ^T 3^^ s^*l ^W^TT ~g-^^|q|^^^ ^TT{<-j^<o, [®«11(^y ^^.^..(^^......^s.^^ 3:n^r^^ (^3^^) '^??w^rf^3n^i ri Having heard learned coi| having perused the records, I amj delay in speedy disposal ofthe defendant No. 2 to explain petitioner/defendant No. 2 in his jnsel appearing for the petitioners, and ofthe opinion that to avoid any further sijit and also to give an opportunity to the petitioner/defendant No. 2 deseri/es subject to payment ofa sum ofR; by the trial court and subject to QRNd4t'< "RR^ ^f ft^t a;(fW?R ^r^Rp? sn^T |ie avemients already made by the pyritten statement, the application of the to be and is accordingly allowed |. 1000/- as costs. It is directed that the trial court shall permit to petiljioner/defendant No. 2 to amend his pleading if he amends his pleadiijg on the next date of hearing, as fixed |)ayment as directed hererinabove, and thereafter the trial court shall pr^ceed to decide the suit in accordance with law, as early as possible. If the respondents herein feel some grievance then they may move apF>ropriate application before this court. Sahu Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^y^^,f^y^-y.^v^..v.^^x!.yK.-.''.-.- ^^^^ ^^ ?T$?Tri<-^<T5Rt^it^—^S/95—1 } / 2008—1,00,000. ^ J^ ^ 7^