M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIOK (227; No. 2:405 OF 201 1 PETITIONER PLAINTIFF Rajeshreie Mahant Ramsundal: Das, aged 40 yrs., Guru Shn Rajeshmle Mahant Vaishnav Das Ji Dudhadhari Math, Raipmj, Distt. Ra‘xipur CG 1 VERSUS i RESPONDENTS l. Lila Jaith Through: Editor: Shri DEFENDANTS Pamsh Nat]: Quartsrly Magazine: San'ta, Dsmi Prsss Bhavan: E= Jhandewala State Ram Jhansi Marg New Delh1 110055 2, Shn Paresh Nath Edltor 8a Pubhsher Quarterly Magazme San'ta Delhi Press Bhavan: E- Jhandewala State Rani Jhansi Marg: New Delhi 110055 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE. 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. I‘r; v MJ (SB :Hon’bie Mx. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present—lMr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. I J INone for the respondents. ORDER (Passed on 02/ 111201 1) Bv thls petmon under Arucle 227 of the Consututlon of Indla petitioner has challenged the legality and pmpriety of the order dated 17/3f 2011 passed by 7th Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in civil suit No. 43-3] 2008 whereby Court below has refused consequential amendment prayed by present plaintiE. 2. Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner is heald. Order impugned, order dated 23/11/2010 and copy of other applications perused. 4. While allowing the amendment application tiled on behalf of the respondents, Court beloyv has permitted filainn'h‘ for corisequential amendment and when same was med ~then Court below has dismissed the‘application by mentioning as follows:- memmtwwtwmuwnat anhmétartd§aaaqni§a€fmmml / Cg 2V W§§$§ia§WmHWww%lmliim# Wamwwm%l matawimmmmm%l” l As permitted, by the trial Court petiti‘oncr was entitled for consequential amendment. Even otherwise, when opportunity for) amendment has been given to respondents then petitioner was also entitled to Iebut the same by consequential amendment. While dismissing the application for consequential amendment filed on behalf of petitioner, Court below has committed an illegality requiring interference in exercise of snpervisory jurisdiction; Consequently, petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. Order impugned is modifled and application filed on behalf of the petitioner for consequential amendment is allowed. Plaintm‘ shall amend its petition within 7 days and Court shall proceed further to decide the case in accordance with law. No order as to i Sdl- T.P. Sharma judge ( costs. ‘ 2* Tl— Y; \