"la'.iOig.E tS[ (-^Vv^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P. fCl "7^^/2006 m ^- PETITIONER Defendant RESPONDENTS Plaintiffs sM^ ^?€- ^^ Defendant No. 1 Defendant No. 2 -^ageshwar aged about 38 years S/o Tejau, R/o Viltage G^v/inda, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS ^l. Dwarika Prasad, aged 55 years, S/o Devnath, R/o Village Nisda, Tahsil Aarang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ^a) TumanLal S/o Devnath, aged about 35 years, at present R/o Village Nisda, P.S. Aarang, Raipur (C.G.) ^b) Smt. Sahodra Bai W/o Lakanlal, at present R/o Village Jaroda, P.S. Aarang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (c) Smt. Khelan Bai W/o Jagdish R/o Aarang, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) at present R/o Village Kirwai ( Rajim ) Di'stt. Raipur (C.G.) ,(d) Smt, Meena Bai W/o HeeramanR/o Village Kuteri, Rajim, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (e) Smt. Kaushilya Bai W/o Baldau, R/o Village Belsoda, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. Gulaba Bai, aged 35 years W/o Devnath ( Now dead ) 3. Neera Bai, aged 35 years D/o Dayaram, Defendant No. 3 Defendant No. 4 Defendant No. 5 Defendant No. 6 Defendant No. 7 Defendant No. 8 6 7 Jamuna Bai, aged about 30 years, D/o Dayaram R/o Village Nisda, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Ganga Bai Wd/o Punitram, aged about 62 years, Shyam S/o Punit, aged about 44 years, Durga S/o Punit 34 years, All are Major R/o Village Govinda Post Aarang, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) 8 (a) Manki Bai, aged about 66 years, W/o Tejau W Bhuneshwar, aged about 42 years, S/o Tejau ^c) Tarkeshwar S/o Tejau, aged about 39 years 9.(a) Mussamaat Nirasha, aged 66 years, Wd/o Sadashiv ^b) Mastu, aged about 43 years S/o Sadashiv ^C ) Harishanker, aged 41 years, S/o Sadashiv All R/o Viltage Govinda,Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION U/A 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA y XI-HC-78 3^'^iraRpT, (i'Tllwid, Riffi'y^i HWyilSbWcli ^•^•^0--^^/^200(. sn^r'raw ('jciijcfi^y) sii^r^ri^iN; BWSfI^Tstiificti <'-\ s^iramlwsTi^T 15,01.2007 Shri L.C.Dash, counsel foi| «bl^^41^t<|t<dYfffei<fl {RlWR ^'atf^iran^r 30.11.2006 passed in Civu application preferred by the uie pebuoaer. t-leard. By this petiuon the petiti|oner has impugned tlie order dated Suit No. 26-A/2006 whereby fhe petffloner tor amenauig wntten stateiuent has been rejected on[ the ground fhat fhe saine has been preferred with au iaordiuate del^y. Leanied counsel for the t)etitioner submits fhat soiae part of fhe property in question stand other persons aud ftiey have be b traasfen-ed ia f&e uame of various en recorded as owner iu ftie revenue papers aud it~ this fact is not bi|ought on record during trial mauitest nijusuce may occasion. 1 faave perusea ttie mipugfiecl oraer. tt is not m dispute fhat]the suit was initiaily decreed by the fcrial Court against which the ptesent petitioner prefen'ed appeal aad Uie sauie was aBowed and Uie ilaatter was reiaanded back to fhe trial Court wifh a direction. to imple ad State as defendant aad fhereafter decide fhe same after hearing t}ie respecti.ve parties and at this stage Uie above aiaendinent was scjught at fhe behest of the petitioner which has been rejected on| the ground fhat the ana.endment appucauon Jias been belatedly ] turUier consiclenng proviso to cj 6led. Considering the reason^ assigned by fhe Court below and rder 6 rule 17 offhe CPC fhis Court is ot Uie coasitlerea opuuon t(iat Uiere is no junsdicUonal error XI-HC-78 r't Hi*i^trai(n<*» 3^^ipncw, »Tnwi$,Rfcfl'yy ^...U^..^..n^2oo^ 3ll^l Maih (l°rt3^T) SII^TWl^TR; TOT3n^Tsbt| 5RIRR(ri?tf3(I^r -"2-- committed bv the Court below i calls for interference under Artic the result fhe petition is disnuss Ull passing fhe unpugned order wbicli le 227 of the Constitution. of India. lu dismiss^d at fiie adniission stage itseU. • qiiitci'fl-f *<i*iiiT^''te^tRresrc ^iSlf^HSn^T Sd/- DhirendraMisbra Judge P.T.O. ( C sa ^, 19