PageNo, { 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASFUR W.P.^TO. 3^60 /2005 / / PETITIONERS :.l-; Sohara Uraon S/o Late Puncham / y Uraon, Aged'about 45, ..'. ^ . /^. ^A^/ ^/^y / /^•> / u<^// /^> "A^y. 4i^ -^M? ^' ^/T^"'w 2<- Gouri D/o Late Puncham Uraon, '. aged about 40 years, ,3. Batu S/o Late Puncham Uraon, aged about 35 years, ,4. Bhagwan Das S/o Late Puncham Uraon, aged about 30 years, 5. Budhaai Widow of Puncham Uraon, aged about 65 years, "s "^""^^. :\J-^ 6'rv: -.S^A-sn ^^.G-l-l-: 6. Mahato S/o Late Hagra Uraon, Caste - Uraon, Occupation- Agriculture, ,- All are R/o VUlage Bheski, P.S. Dhourpur, Tahsil Rajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONBENTS :l/ Shankar S/o Late Baiju, aged about 35 years, &. Mangala S/o Late Baiju, aged about 40 years, 3: Ramnath S/o Late Baiju, aged about 30 years, at se WQi '<t (2) 4. Sainpat S/o Late Hagra Uraon, aged about 60 years, 5^ Khora S/o Late Rutu, aged about 50 <T years, y Dhani S/o Late Rutu, aged about 45 • years, T^ Mani S/o Late Rutu, aged about 40 years, 'All are By-Caste Uraon, Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village Bheski, P.S. Dhourpur, Tahsil Rajpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.). ^ 8; Bagarsai S/o Late Nanka, aged about 50 years, -^. Babulal S/o Late Nanka, aged about 40 years, 10. Hiralal S/o Late Nanka, aged about 35 years, >1. Smt. Jatti Widow of Nanka,aged about 70 years, All are By-Caste Uraon, R/o Village Bheski, P.S. Dhourpur, Tahsil Rajpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.). 12. State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Collector of Surguja Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). (^ a [©N®i f 3 5 (3 :f< WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22? OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA N:,: ~q& XI-HC-22 sn^T^ir R-ficbsn^i shHi«b(rf?tT shHI«b ajn"" 'S^ -^IWif^, ESTflti'IS, RldK-iy 3ii^;'i ^iaeti *II*<MI sn*iicn /s> 200^ Sll^l ^•WIWfffScT Mr. Manoj Mishra, Mr. Ravi Ranjan Sinha, No.12. Heard both the counsel The petitioners have 227 of the Constitution of correctness of order dated 181 Jud9e, Class-I, Ambikapur, has rejected the application o^f Order 6 Ru!e 7 of the C.P.C. fol- I have perused the amendment. The defence aiready been taken by the written statement. Therefore, I do not fincj triai Court has not acted witNi petition is iiable to be dismiss^d admission stage itself. Consequently, M.(W.)P.I disposed of. iDifFci'n-i *iiiMTfftec^<Ri«i<. ^arf^lTSn^T couns^l for tiie petitioners. Panei Lawyer for the State/respondent lin admission. pijeferred this writ petition under Article Incjia, questioning the legality, propriety and l-7-2005, passed by the 1st Additional Civi! wl^ereby the learned Additional Civit Judge df the petitioners/defendants filed under amendment of the written statement. written statement and the proposed ^e9arding the proposed amendment has p^titioners herein in paras 2 <& 6 of the any substance in this writ petition. The material irregularity or illegality. The ond it is accordingly, dismissed, at the '.Mo.3084/2005 & I.A.No.6918/2005 stund rtei Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge f^t