9 L¢¢7); 23; WW 1200 \ . m%€f mf€m P- Bhim Tandon S/o ate Teiu Ram, ed abou 45 y€$s, R/c' Chitrabd, Tahsil Gunderdehi. iott D 1rg (CG) 1. Bu o Bihari ai, Rjo Gundcrdchi, '2. a i‘o Sh Lal Lnm Ba,W/ vam . Dropa Ba Wjo Rameshar $ahu, B re, Rfo va Chichbai, o* 1 a inag s Gunderdehi Tann Stata C through thy oiie , Durg (C) . ET‘T!O!' UHD...“ “R. "' ” 22! OF THE COHSTIN ' TUTKQ Q F. A L Q R D E R - EPJ ' ‘ 3hirendra Mishra. J. Shri RM. Soiapuar, vocate for the petitioner. Bhaskar Pasi Pel Laer, for the State. Ja- peer, bv e ' s , h ai Plud 220 p v g s I, d hi ndment in the plajnt has een rejected. T t T’he tition th tant petition as Chlenged the order of Annexure -’‘ate‘ 5-1—08 assed b learned Civii Jude Clas —1 Gundar whereby his application for ame b he petitioner-plaintiff iled the suit for declaration and perpetual iniunction and d’ ction to the defendant No. 1 to execute sale deed in his f our Wltn the averment that the 19/4”“, x 4V WWWW U p ¢a mm H ETITI"TJR Raj , L t ag t n ‘ ES? "——‘I\TTS tu Ram, Sj L O "‘m‘ L 3 ti i, f h; amssar‘; Cc' r U § in‘mA i5-4-2063 4> rk Ad Snrl av, an wv ‘0 WWWW mmwQWWZ’gig200 @ mm (Wu) Wmm Wm f§am $a1mané$r defendant No. 1 deiivered the possession of the suit land on 18— 1'2- 1992 after obtaining executing an agreement to s ll. Thereafter the plaintiff proposed amendment to incorporate he pleading in the plaint that he 15-8-2004 by the defendants in V connivance with the poiice d partment and the appeliant was in peaceful possession from th year l99‘2 for a continuous period of 12 yeais and thus he s perfected his title by adverse DOSSBSSIOIL Leanied triai Court considering the fact that the appiication for amendment 'as flied in the year 2007 to bring oh record the fact of disp ssession on 15-8-2004 and has introduced inconsistent p1 adings of perfection of title by adverse possession, rejected application for amendment. In the considered op ‘on of this Court, the reasons assigned by the Court bei for reiecting the application‘i/s in accordance With law and there is no iilegaiity, infirmity or jurisdictionai error committed by the Court beiow warranting nsideration of Rs. 9,000/- and was forcibiy dispossessed interference under Article/22 7 of the Constitution of india. The petition is accordir‘giy dismissed. ‘ ’/‘ \, V N Dhuend‘ya M sma Midge W , c o a e o