W.P. (U/A 2271 Ho. 6768/2011 Defendants No. 2 & 3 KESPO?iDENTS 1] 2] Pritain Singh Gavel son of late Preni Siagh, aged 54 years, Resident of town, Transport Nagar Sakti TahsU Sakti District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.j Trilokchand Jaiswal son of late Gaunat Lal aged 49 years resident of town Sakti Ward No. 8 TaIisU Sakd District Jaajgir-Chainpa (C.G.). Shyamsundar son of late Maugat Rain aged 55 years Rsillissliy&ni son of Ists ^lsjisst Ratu aged 62 years, KaiSashchand son of late Maiigat Ram. aged 50 years, Gayatri devi wife of late Oinprakash aged 63 years, All Above are R/o Sakti, Ward No. 6 Hatari Chowk, Sakti Talisil Sakti District Jaitjgir-Champa (C.G.). Durga Prasad Upadhyay son of late Baboolal, aged 43 yrs Occupation general labour resident of towu Sakti Ward No. 9 Tah.sU Sakti District Janjgir- Champa C.G. The State of Chhatdsgarh fhrough the CoUector Jarygir- Champa (C.G.). WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIOW OP VERSUS 11 2] 3] 4] 5] (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate with Shri Vikram Dixit, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Akhil Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 6. Respondents No, 1 to 5 not noticed. (Passedosi 18/11/2011$ -- 1. By ttiis petition under Article 227 of fhe Constitution of India petitioners have chaUenged the legaUty and pi-opriety of fhe order dated S 171'2011 to the extent of aUowing application for ainendinent filed under Order 6 Rule 17 offhe C.P.C. as I.A. No 9 on behalf of fhe respondents No. l to 3 by Additional District ^r^j\ d ^-is,. i K f! lffa'f£s.^ ~ '^ 1' ':^%. J -^- Judge, Sakti, Distnct Jaajgeer Champa (C.G.) in civil suit No. 10A/2010. 2. Shn Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate with Shri Vikram Dixit, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri AkhU Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 6 are heard. 3, Order impugned, copy of the plaint, copy of the ainendment application and other docuiuents penised. Vide onler dated 10/2/2011 plaintiffs bad amended plaint that petitioners and respondent No. 5 has iUegaUy dispossessed the plaintiff and had constructed boundary waB tbereafter thev have filed amendment applicatiou for valuation of claim of deinolition, claim of possessioa, all fhe amendiuents claiiued aad aUowed are purely consequential to pnevious ataendinent dated 10/2/2011. By aUowuig I.A. No. 9 Additional District Judge, Sakti has not coiuinitted any iUegaUty requiring any interference ui exercise of supervisoxy judsdiction. Consequentiy petition is Uable to foe disiuissed aad is herebv disniissed. No order as to costs. 4. Interim. applicati.an stands disposed of - — - Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge r^