HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( 2271 N0. 1160 OF 2010 PBTITIONERS 'Defeadasts! KE8PONDENTS (PlaiaUBsl (Defendant No. 6) l(a). (b). (c). (d). (e). 2. 3. 4. 5. VBRSUS 1. 2. Smt. Mina Bai Widow of Late Ishwar Nath, aged 38 years, Hemant Kiuaar Son of Late Ishwar Nath, aged 20 years, Ku. Deinin. D/o Late Ishwar Nath, aged 22 years. Ku. Dashoda Bai, D/o Late Ishwar Nafh, a^ed about 19 yeaTS. AU are R/o Vfflage Mura, TahsU Kurud, District Dhamtan (C.G.). Sint Kiran Bai D/o Late Ishwar Nafh, aged 25 years, R/o Vfflage Ravad, Post Rajini, Tahsil Rajim., District Raipur (C.G.). Permeshwar Soa of Pusau, aged about 34 years, Diliu Ram Son of Pusau, aged about 23 years, Bhoj Ram Son of Pusau, aged about 20 years, MUapa Bai Widow of Pusau, aged about 53 years, Respondent No. 2 to 5 are R/o ViUage Mura, TaIisU Kurud, District Dhamteri (C.G.). Sint. Raaibha Bai wife of Shri Udho Ram Saliu, aged 45 years. R/o ViUage Mura, Tahsfl Kurud, District Dhanatari (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, Through The CoUector, District Dhanitan (C.G.). WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hoa?Me Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Rewa Shankar Patel, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri B.P. Singh, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri Vinod KumarTekam, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 2. ORDBR (Passed on 20/09/2011) By fhis petition under Article 227 of fhe Constitution of India petitioners have chaUenged the legaUty aad propriety of the order dated 27/11/2009 passed bv CivU Judee, Class-2, Kumd District Dhamtari (C.G.) in civil suit No. 120-A/2005 whereby trial Court has aUowed the ainendment filed on behalfofthe respoiKlent No. 1 -^- i.e, plaintiff after 11 years of inipleadtng herself as plaintiff after death of Bhawani Siugh original plaintiff. 2, Shri Rewa Shaukar Patel, Advocate for the petitionera, Shri B.P. Singh, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and Shri Vinod Kuinar Tekam, P.L. for fhe State/respondent No. 2 are heard, 3. Order impugned, copy of the plaiut & copy of the written statemeat perased. 4, Leanied coitnsel for fhe respondent No.l subxnits that ia the year 1996 present petitioners have filed counter claim. fherefore iu order to meet counter claun it was necessaiy to plamtiff/respondent No. 1 to amend her plaiut suitably although she has amended her plaint after lapse of 1 1 yeare. 5. On due consideration offhe order impugned and copy offhe ofher documents while allowing amendinent trial Court has not committed substantial Ulegality but Court ought to have considcred long delay ia filmg of such appUcation for amendment, cost of only Rs. 200/- would not serve the ends ofjustice. Consequently, ordcr impugned is inodified to fhe extent that amendment appUcation is aUowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 4,000/ - by respondent No. 1 to petitioners withia 15 days finni today before the trial Court aad aU the amend.iaents shaU be subject to the question of timitation i.e. by allowiug amendment it shall not be presumed that clauns and pleadiags are within limitation. No order as to costs, 6. In view of the above, I.A. No. 3 appUcation for ui^ent hearfng stands disposed of. _ _ Ju/~ T.P. Sharma Judge •^