r aBE HIGH cagss ee JUDBS&SORE &T <TteAE.p@R(M.p.) WRIT PETT'rifflar HO.__^_1_TU ^/l997.- - ili s... EETITIOSERs Snt. Kusum TiwaEi^ W/o Sbri B.B.Siwarl, Nirala Bagar, Bus Staad, BtlasBur (M.P.) VE R S U S BBSPQEIBEHa'S* 1. Blstrlet Judge, Bilaspur. 2. Union of ladia, Slarougbs Genpral Maaager, South Eastem Rallway, Q-ardea Reaeh, ealeutta. 3. Bstate Officer, South Eas-tera Railways, BIL^Hre. ^ !, ^^^ WSS& ^ ^ay^ C-s?*>" i l\oo> SHE S&'SSES.'QV SSXICIS ^26 &HD)227 i^ v^-.t'^v . - orcfsss'ciTg'siQSQ'si^i^ .^•^^\. ^^ —78 sn^ivi Ww wn sn^?t aiiiT MWCTI a>*<i<n ^SE[ "111-1)lcl •4, oflly'is, facii'yy ^^.gA?.^..Sn5../3.5L......TFI.200 3(1^1 •q^HT ('^rfy^) I^TW^tttT STI^T Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Smt. Haaaeeda Sid<| and 3. None appears for r^ Heard finally. Shri Bajaj. only laij jurisdiction offhe Estate] order passed by the Es1 and, fherefore, the petitio] So far as tlie fhe Estate Officer is conj Civil Revision No. 471/^ L.Rs. Gtrdharilal and @1 before ffae High. .Gourt 9; petitioner. Tlie satae vie' Revision No. 2407/2000; Bench vide order Anne; raised by Shri Bajaj, ha; covered by fhe earlier dec quest|on ^Fiferat-'i •WRif •?ft%>'rfw?R i; sifiiii aii^i Advocate, for fhe petitioner. liqui, Adv. for fhe respondents No. 2 spondentNo. 1. sed the question of competency and Officer and submitted fliat since fhe ate Ofiicer was without jurisdiction n deserves to be atlowed. of competency.and jurisdiction of ;enied, the said point was raised in |000 (Khiyaldas (deceased) through |hers -v- Union of India arld o.fhers) M.P. and was decided agains-t the |y was taken bv fhis Court in.Civil which ha.s been decided by Single [ure R-2 and, therefore, fhe point no merit as fhe saine is squ.arely ision of this Court. .4' i.—XUHC—ys sn^r^nfrfre' ^T ^i^ sr>*ii% 'S^ '^nwi, (?Tf)y'l^,fs|<?)|yy o *II*ICTI fl»*ira» WI.200 SII^TT'tra^'('yifgsi^?) TOiiw^fcrsii^i *i<it<-i41-) wwl if fs^t ^re^re ^TSTRPT 311^1 Heard on I.A. No. 4|, application for amendment—5i" writ petition. This petition has bei^n filed by the petitioner way back in fhe year 1997 and since ^hen it is pending and therefore, the amendment sought by w^,' of the amendment application ffled on 27-7-2009 after 12 ^ears of filing of the writ petition cannot be aUowed in fhi^ petition. Therefore, fhe application is rejected. In view of the abov^, the petition is disinissed. However, if at all, the petitioner f^els fhat he has some remedy under Article 14 of fhe Co^stitution of India, he may seek appropriate remedy m| accordance with law by filin| appropriate proceedinj '! :v'.SdA'" N-K-Agrawal re