\'k Sj^^ 9 '^•A>S^? .•o :^ Ci^ HSGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BiLASPUR "<i"i Piaintiff Writ Petition {Art.2271 hio.2138 of 201 Smt.Ekmaia Devi aged about 65 years Widow of Late Shri Narendra Psul Singh Tanwr Resident or viliage Chhuri, Tah.Katghora, Disf.Korba (C.G.) Ssspondents Defendanfs 1. Ramesh Kumar Panjwani aged about 52 years 2. Shyam Lai Panjwani aged aboui 40 yeare 3. Anii Kumar Panjwani aged about 36 years Aii sons of Late Shri Milkiram Panwani 4. Smt.Savitri Devi Panjwani Aged 61 yesrs Widow of IVIUkiram Paniwani 5. Deepak Kumar Panjwani aged about 19 years Son of Ashok Panjwani Al! Residents of Main Road, Near Oid Bus Stand Korba, Tah & Dist.Korba (C.G.) 6. State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector Korba, Tah. & Dsst.Korba (C.G.) CWrit Petition under Article 227 of the Consfjtution of india) Mr.Viprasen Agrawai, counsei for ihe petitioner. Mr.Sunii Otvrani, counsei ror respondents No,1 to 5. Mrs.Sangseta Mishra, Pane Lav.yer for respondent NO.S/'State. (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) (15-11-2011) Bv thi Sy this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of ina'ia trte petitioner has chailenged the iegaiity and propriety of the order 25.3.2010 passed by the Civii Judge Ctass-il, Korba, in Ch/ii Suit No.40A/'2009, whereby the Civii Judge Ciass-ii has dlsmissed the s ^ ^ ," S! ~ ^-~ appltoation fiied by the petitioner/piajmiff for amendment under Order 6 Ruie 17 of the Code of Civii Procedure. 2. i have heard Searned counsei for the parties, perused the order impugned and other documents filed on behaif of the petitioner. 3. Leamed counsei for the peiitioner subraits that in accordance vflth Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Propsrty Act, 1882, aforesaid pieading ss necessary for determination of the lease. 4. Per contra, iearned counsei for respondents Nc.1 to 5 subrrats that as per piaint aliegation the petitioner/piaintiff has already determined the iease, therefore, aforesaid pieadlng is not nscessary' for deciston of the;SUit. 5. Considering the Section 111(g) ofthe Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and aiieged appiication for amendment, i do n<rt find any iiiegaiity In the order impugned warranting inierference. 6. ConsequentSy, the writ petition is iiabie to be dismissed and it Is hereby dfemissed. No order as to costs. 7. interim appiication stands disposed of. Sd/- T.P.ShariT'a