HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION I 227) iiO. 4843 OF 2011 PETITIONER Ajay Brijmohan Agrawal, ag€d about 29 ye'ars, Occupau'on Business, R/o Danipara Rajgarh Tahsil 65 Distn'ct Raigarh (ca). ’ RESPONDENTS 1. Mohammad Abdul Gail‘ar S/o DEFENDANTS Mohammad Sattar, aged about 65 ycars, Rio Palac Road Raigarh (C.G.). 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Rajgarh (C.G.). ' Asgan' Akhtar Wio F‘iroj Akhtar, aged about 4O years, Rio Chhote Atarmuda Raigarh, Tahsil 8r. District Rajgarh (C.G.). 4. Murlidhar Agrawal S/o Netram ' Agrawal, aged about 48 years, R/o Bajkunthpur Raigarh, Tahsil & Dismict Raigarh (C.G.). Kumar Agrawal S/ o PLAINTIFF VERSUS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SE :Iion’iaie Mr. T.?.Si1arma, J.) Present:- M1". Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 2. Respondents No. 1, 3 85 4 not noticed. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 25/08/2011) 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 22/7/2011 passed by District Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in civil suit No. 22A/2007 whereby District Judge Raigarh (C,G.) has allowed consequential amendment filed on behalf of the defendants and has fixed the case for defendants evidence. 2. Mr. Santosh Kumar vTiwari, Advocate for the petitioner 8t, Ms, Sangeeta Mishra, P.L. for the State] respondent No. 2 axe heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after amendment of pleading by both the parties framing of additional issue and 1 JJ‘ e V v6 opportunity to adduce svidsnce to both the parties was necessary but Court below has not provided such opportunity. As per order impugned, Court below has passed the order before the parties, present petitioner] plaintiff is not applied for any additional issued or for providing opportunity to adduce evidence although petitioner was having such opportunity instead of ming suitable application before the Court below petitioner has tiled this present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Considering the attitude of the petitioner, petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/— payable to respondents No. 1, 3 8t, 4 within 10 days Mm today before the Lower Court. If petitioner tiles any application for framing of additional issue on the ground of amendment in pleading by both parties and mes application for providing opportunity of adducing evidence then Court is required to decide the same in accordance with law. 5. I.A. No. 01 stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Certified copy as per rules. Sdl- T.P. Sharma Judge