INTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI3SSABU AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON U/A227 N0. \\\S^ OF 2010 PETITIONER : DEFENDANT No.t ^' ..'^'^|S: .^•^^w^-' Smt. Savitri Parikh, aged about 38 years, W/0 Sudama By Caste Brahmin, R/0 Kanchanpur, Post Office- Sakti, District- Janjgir- Champa, (C.G.). ^ES-' ^^-iSi'^ RESPONDENT PLAINTIFF VERSUS , 1. Chandan Singh Netam, aged about 61 years, S/0 Bularam By Caste- Gond, R/0 Village- Nawapara, Kurud, Post- Nandorkhurd, Tahsil- Sakti, District- Janjgir- Champa, (C.G.). DEFENDANT No.2 : „ 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through ^ -iiy^^ ^..£ail^£rtsr.. ff*Hf ' «- ^ ^ ', Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UUNDER ARTICLES 227 flFJljE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 1. __Particulafs-tA 3S[ .^i<<id<<, ynly'Ko, faidiyy VI ^ii.V))^^^fi^l'3 sn^i ''ra^ ('yl^^) sil^l W Ri-li* 'a^T STT^fT sR^Nr W-l!"f ?i?iw "aflre 3ii^i SB : Hon'Ue Shri Manindra Mohan Shrit^tava. J againp firid 05-04-2010 Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for ttie pejitioner Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, actvance copy. This petition has been filed P/1) by which amendment applicatton allowed. Assailing the tegality and validity tearned counsel forthe petitioner is that bjt to after the nature of his claim. His furthet the pleadings wsre vague but tater on, was laiger 1han the plaint iteelf. He committed jurisdictfonal illegality and apptication. 1 have considered the submisstor) petitioner. From the perusal of the impugnei) suit, petttionerAlefendant in her written regarel to source of her litle over Ihe lanc plaintiff moved annendment applicatiorl. applicatBn do not show that by amendm^nt, of suit The suit is at the preliminary stag^ No prejudice woukl be caused to the p^t totality ofthe ciroumstances, the submissi petitioner and the reasons assigned by held Ihat the impugned order in any mai|)i P^nel Lawyer for respondent hto.2 on Tnlci^li imcfl''if 1%^ ^aifinan^r the order dated 8/2/2010 (Annexure by the respondent/plaintiff has been |of the impugned order, submission of the said amendment the plaintiff seeks submission is that initially in the plaint, an|iendment application was moved which Isubmits that leamed Trial Court has plenrereity in allowing ttie amendment made by the leamed counsel for the order, it is revealed that after filing of statement made certain averments with in dispute. It was thereafter fhat the The contents of the amendment the plaintiff seeks ID alter ttie nature ]fe and the issues have not been framed. ^titioner. Taking into conskleratton the jon made by the learned counsel fbr the leamed Trial Court, 1 am unable to |ner suffers from error of jurisdictton or ftie fcr:tpii.<--r:t ] p—32»]»-1,00,000. '^••rs"s!: T^^TR^R, ^cfrOTs, ^diyy ..v>.:.Lfcl.?j.^.o.AL<.Q^..^ ^V^Vf.-^^vi) 3irtWW^?R? wna'li^iwni l^nW«fcT3D^! _^_ Tumane perversity so as ta warrant interference jurisdiction underArticte 227 ofthe Conslj The petiUon is Iherefore dismiss^ petitioner submte Ihat in viaw of the allowing fte amendment application, amendment in her writtsn statement lt| situation it would be open for the petitiof filing appropriate application. In the ev^ below shatl decide the same in accordarlt WWtctO-l WWSif^S tf^TC ^aiOTs^n tfr this Court in exeroise of its supennsory < ftution of tndia. >^d. At this stage, tearned counsel for the (rder passed by the teamed Trial Court p^tittoner intends to make consequential need not be emphasized ttiat in such a ier to seek consequentiat amendment by ^nt, application is fited, the learnedCourt ce wth law. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge aig'&ifEl'B^.pi'irei!', (R^I inrt,; — I..; ;i7- -;,;()io_i.oo.000. 53