HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0. 1437 OF 2010 PETITIONERS PLAINTIFFS 1. 2. VERSUS RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS Mohar Sai Son of Arjun Ram, aged about 50 years. Heera Sai Son of Arjun Ram, aged about 35 years. Both residents of Village Sohagpur, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). Vishwanath Son of Shyam Sunder aged about 45 years. Ramnath Son of Late Shyam Sunder, aged about 45 years. Lallu Ram Son of Shyam Sunder, aged about 35 years. The respondent No. 1 to 3 are Resident ofVillage Batra, Police Station Jainagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). Savakshi Son of Late Shyam Sunder, aged about 33 years, Resident ofVillage Parsapara, Kalyanpur, Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). Keshwari D/o Late Shyam Sunder, aged about 30 years, Resident of Village Karoundhamunda, Police Station Jainagar, District Surguja (C.G.). Lalji Son of Jagdish, aged about 25 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Village Sohagpur, Police Station Jainagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). Sukwaro D/o Jagdish, Wife of Kahhai, aged about 40 years, Resident of Village Girvarganj, Police Station and Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). Chanda D/o Jagdish, Wife of Dube, aged about 35 Years, Resident of Village Tendupara, Police Station Surajpur, Chowki Basdei, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh), through the Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONTITUT!OILOF INDIA. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sushobhit Singh, Advocate for the respondents No. I to 8. Shri Sushil Dubey, G.A. for the State/respondent No. 9. 6. 7. 8. ^.-(' ^ 3 Jk ^ ""71 '•-ts/ / ^^" U'5 ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 17/08/2010) 1. Heard. 2. Order impugned dated 16/2/10 passed by Civil Judge Class-1, Surjpur, District Surguja in Civil Suit No. 34-A/2004 whereby application for amendment in plaint on the basis of subsequent changes dated 3/9/04 has been dismissed perused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although suit is pending since 1995 but trial has not commenced till today on the basis of information they came to know on 12 /11/09 defendants had sold the land to 3 other persons therefore with a view to avoid multiplicity the suit which was necessary to the plaintiffs to aniend the plaint and also making purchaser as a party, present petitioners filed the application in the year -2004 but Court below has illegally dismissed the application on 16/2/10. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition. 5. Order impugned, copy of the plaint and copy of amendment application reveals that present petitioners have filed the application for amendment in the plaint within reasonable time. Ainendment as prayed is also necessary for disposal of the case while dismissing the application Court below has committed an illegality. Consequently, this petition is allowed. Order impugned is hereby set-aside. Application for amendment and impleading the new person party filed on behalf of the petitioners is hereby allowed. Respondents may make consequential amendment. 6. No order as to costs. 7. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Judge Shrivastava F'1.T 1