62) 9 §§E§§LE gmwf IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.GJ WP. 227 No.é.H.7.H./2o1o /’/ Petitioner Raisaheb Madho Prasad & Plaintiff Gajara Bai Chandrakar, Private Trust, Station Road, Durg (C..G.) Through- President Dr. Mangai Prasad Chandrakar, Aged 69 years, S/o Jageshwar Prasad, Station Road, Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Respondents Defendants Banke Bahadur (Dead) Through- Legal Representatives Baby @ non-known w/o Brajkishore Singh Aged 41 years, R/o Kadambari Nagar, Durg (C.G.) Girish Singh @ Ashok Singh S/o Late Banke Bahadur Singh, aged 36 years, resident of 'Deepak Nagar, Durg (C.G.) Mukesh Singh S/o Late Banke Bahadur Singh aged 32 years resident of Deepak Nagar, Durg (C.G.) Ku. Namita D/of Late Banke Bahadur Singh aged 29 years, resident of Deepak Nagar, Durg (C.G.) §v " we“? ‘* FEE l J ’ ‘ \ \ \BH ‘ may v“ B F @ PETITION UNDER ART. 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IND If) IA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: W Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra ‘ Writ'Peu'tion (2271 No. 6414/2010 Representatives Baby and others Aggearance: Shri Mano} Paranjpe, counsel for the petitioner. ”9L“ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE ‘ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (9.1 1 .2010) Heard. (2) Challenge in this wn't petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order passed by the trial court rejecting the plaintiff’s/petitioner’s application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC for framing ofadditional issues. (3) Plaintiff who is the land lord has Rled the present suit for eviction of the defendant in the year 1990 on the grounds inter alia that the premises were let out to the defendant for residential purposes. However, the defendant has constructed his own house and has permitted his brother to retain possession of the tenanted house and also that one Manju tailor has been permitted to occupy the front portion and thus the tenant has parted with possession. It has also ‘been stated that the tenant has encroached an additional area Welonging to the plaintiff which was never let out to him. PETITIONER Raisaheb Madho Prasad Versus RESPONDENTS I Banke Bahadur (Dead) K fL/ gv (4) According to the petitioner, the plaint was amended in the year 2005 to plead that the defendant’s son has occupied the portion originally occupied by Manju tailor and has started STD PCO, photo copy and building material business and has also aEected changes in the premises. It has also been stated in the amended pleading that the daughter of the defendant’s brother has been allowed to retain possession of one part of the tenanted premises and another part has been allowed to be occupied by one huit vendor. (5) The subject application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC was moved in the month of September 2010 on the pleadings that no issues have been framed about the starting of business by the plaintiff’s son and causing material alternation in the premises. (6) The trial court dismissed the application after observing that the issues were already framed on 1/12/1991 and the plaint was amended on 10/08/2005 and that on account of failure of the plaintiff to lead evidence his evidence has already been closed on 11/09/2007. Thus, the application appears to have been submitted to protract the litigation and is not necessary. (7) The reasoning assigned by the trial court while rejecting the prayer for haming additional issues appears to be justified. There is , absolutely no explanation in the application under Order 14 Rule 5 as l‘ l to why the said prayer for framing additional issues was not moved l (with l quite promptitude. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has failed to \ duce evidence and the trial court has observed that the plaintiffs evidence has been closed on 11/09/2007, thus, allowing the prayer under Order 14 Rule 5 at this stage would reopen the trial. (8) For all the foregoing reasons, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court. (9) The instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sdl- fife/V / Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge f?\\‘