-SINGLE Bm C^NC 2N TNE O? 3UDICATURE AT Writ PetJtion No;t^F7|of 2005 Petjtioners PIalntiffe 1. Smt Dhanush Kunwar,w/o.Chatur Singh aged about 65 years, R/o. Tliak Nagar Tahsii & District - BISaspur (Chhattlsgarh) 2. Smt Pratlbha w/o. Afcul Slngh TIIak Nagar , TahsiS & Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattlsgarh) RespQn^ents Defendants ^^<^-;^ ^:^ ^^ •?A- '% .R<, r?.ia ^ ASY (4^0C*7£)' PHI'^^ Vs. 1. Smt Priya W/o, Nlranjan Dlxlt (Archltect) BaJaghat (M.P.) 2. Smt. Priti w/o. VJdum Kohahape LIC, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Smt. Anifca w/o. Arun Kumar AII ResJdenfcofTllak Nagar^. Bliaspur ^ ASS Rl to R3 Legai representative of deceased Arun Kumar.. 4. Dilip Kumar aged about 49 years s/o. Late Madhukar Rao. 5. Smt Bapl aged about 56 years^ D/o. Late M^dhukar Rao, 6. Smt Kanchan aged about 56 years. 7. Smt Ranjana aged about 44 years, 8. Balluaged about 54 years,. 9. Smt Deepa , aged about 41 years, All 3 to 9 sons and daughters of Madhukar RQQ Kanohar^ Resident ofTHak Nagar , BiSaspur Tahsil & Dlstrict - Bilaspur (Chhatdsgarh) Wjl£ PeSltloii uii^er Artlcie 227 of the constltutlon of India tor lssajass€@ot_a5ffiroi?rlat€writ wrlts , ©rder®rdirecSloii etc. XI-HC-22 3TI^F^T ^ich^n^r ^OT^^f?<T qa 3^ r^Ni^i^, ^Tfi<M^(o, (^<ni^^< <TTHC<TF ^WT^ 3l(^1^5<ch .(W7.^.^^.^..... ^ 200 3- 3n^T?^T8aT^f?cT 15.04.2005:. Shri Sanjay K.Agrawal, leai|ned counset for the petitioners. This petition is directed ag by Vlth Civil Judge, Class-11 in appiication of the petitioner for pteading of perfection of title dismissed. ^inst the order dated 14.12.1998 pa^sed C|ivil Suit No. 111-A/98 and by which the ajmendment in the plaint to incorporate a (hrough adverse possession has been it is submitteci by counse|l revision was preferred by the p^ Court vide order of Annexuro Pj| maintainable. It is further submittt applicatjon for amendment has b^ it has been made belatedly an(l exercise the jurisdjction which was| j have heard learned ooun^ei the application for amendment a|id defendants. Learned Civil Judge has rej recordsng a finding that prior t appiications for amendment were Is no sxpianation for moving this also appears from the record thal and written statement was filed i chl^?d41^ ^l^dT^te^<M^l< ^3Tl^T3TI^T for the petitjoners that eariier a civit i^titioners which was dismissed by this <6 on th©ground that th©same is not ^d by oounsel for the petitioners that the &en simply dismissed on the ground that thus, the Court below has failed to Ivested in jt. for the petitioners and gone through reply to the said application by the jected the application for amendment by filing of this application number of |moved by the plaintiff and as such there lappljcation for amendment belatedly. It the suit has been filed in the year 1980 ft the year 1991 and the applicatjon for (lft^y^T) XI-HC-22 3^'^TPTRW, ^Tfl^41?, I®8cnHy 3l(^l M?l<sb ^Nd^Ni*^^'/>^^- •"" ^: 200 ^ f^s ^Tl^T^T f^TRF3T^?T ^ri^^cT 3TI^T^<TTW:^f?cT amendment was moved after seveh there is no explanation for detay in In view of the above facts Court below in exercising the jur{sdiction amendment application, 1 do not cads for any interference under Court. Accordingly, the petition is c|i ind further considering the fact that the vested in it, has rejected the ^onsider present to be a fit case which l^rticle 227 of the Constitution by this cjismissed at the admission stage itself. <t)i^fcn41Ti ^i*4<nT^fte1[:^"<t^^i< ^^rf^T3:n^T years offiling ofwrjtten statement and ling this appljcatjon. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ir^ ('ft^^f^)