6%? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GH AT BILA$PUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwakar) WRIT PETITION (227) No. 6027 of 2008 i i Mr. Kshitiz Sharma, counsel for the petitioner; l Mr. H.B. Agrawal, leamed Senior Counsel with Ms. r Rinky Tamrakar, counsel for the respondents. l WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTTON OF INDIA ' ORDER, (24.04.2009) With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. '. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 06.09.2008 passed by 4‘“ Civil Judge, Class l, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 91-N2007 iC PETlTlONER: Shri (Plaintiff) Mangal vDubey' Memoriai Education Society, a society registered under the relevant provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1972 having its registered at 6, Dunga Ji Colony,_ Daganiya, Raipur through its authorized representative - Treasurer Sameer Dubey, Dubey, son of Late Santosh Kumar Dubey, aged about 36 VERSUS REsPONDENTS 1. Pt. Ravishankar (Defendants) Shukla University, through Vice-Chanceiior Laxman Chaturvedi, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Campus, Raipur. Shri K.K. Chandrakar, Registrar; Ravishankar Shukia University, Pt. Ravishankar Shukia University Campus, Raipur. 3. Engineering Department, Pt. Ravishankar Shukia University,i through Shri Pooran Engineer, ,Bais, in—charge/ Pt. Ravishankar Engineering Shukia Departmentw University, Campur, \ y § ‘y whereby the court below has rejected the application (Annexure P~3) filed by the piaintiff under Section 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking certain amendmentin the plaint. 3. Admitted position is that the suit for declaration and permanent by the plaintiff on 22.06.2007 and till date the injunction was filed issues have not been framed and that the eggs still at the Amendment application \‘as 'been tiled on 28.1 1 .2007 i.e. after filing of the written statement by the defendants. 4.. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that by way of amendment the plaintiff wants to elaborate the pleadings already particularly in paragraph 17 so as to make clear about the location of the property so that plaintiff can substantiate his preliminary stage, made in the plaint 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that such a belated amendment cannot be permitted. V Counsel for the respondent further submits that it is nowhere pleaded by the plaintiff that he is enjoying the way for last 20 years. 6. V l have heard counsel for both the parties and perused the record. In para 17 of the plaint it has been submitted by the plaintiff: case in a prOpel’ manner. q; -4.” J Counse! for the respondents submits that he may be permitted to made coneequentiai amendment. This prayer seems to be reasonable and accordingly he is permitted to do so. ,r/// /,/ V/aK/V/ Sé" iw$ker /z/ . - efD Yr\"“k3“ége / r