$§imgv“~ *wbm “% IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No. 4%? 2/2004 PETITIONER: /NK Chatterji S/O Shree MK. Chatterji Aged about 60Years R/O Behind Milan Kiran Stores Lewgkw Devpuri P.S. Tikrapara Teh. 86 Distt. Raigtm: (C.G.) ¢"‘E° VERSUS Kw $\\€\ ...... ' ?\ .......“"(M RESPONDENTS : } s 1) Keju S/O Ram Jhadu Ram Satna1§11 We a‘$J'yyk 3/53” Aged about 55 Years (2) Smt. Bodhari Bai W/O Keju Ram Both / R/O Devpuri RS. Tikrapara Raipur, Teh. 81; Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ./,/(3) Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Through Executive Engineer Main Offlce, Chhattisgarh Electricity Board Gudhiyari, Tah.& Distt. Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI ETC OR ANY OTHER DIRECTIONS OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. To; The Hon’ble Chief Justice and his i Companion Justices of the Hon’ble § High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspux. RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH. I mmwmwm} m 20cm \mm (W) mmw WWW WW fs€rW WWW ' $ai§mam§¥r 1 1.1.2005 Shri Satyendm Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. The p€1iti0116r has prefarrcd‘ this WH‘t patition undcr Articla 2'27 3f the Constitution of lndia challenging the legality, propriaty and cortecmoss of the. order dated l4. [0.2004‘ passed by learnelDistm‘ct Judge, Raipur in Civil Case No.38j2003 whereby learned District Judge rejected the prayer of defendant/petitioner herein for amendment of the written stateme As argued by learned counse for the petitioner. respondent No. 1 3r, “2 herein have filed a civil Suit against the piesent petitioner for 3ompensation on the, ground that their son was died due to alectrocution in the farm house of the petitioner herein. Written Statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner herein and baeed on the ) pleadings of the parties issues were framed, even iesgmndent No. 1 8a 2 adduced their evidence and closed the evidence. When the matter was Fixed for evidence of the petitioner herein, all of a sudden an applicatibn under Order 6 'Rule 7 of CFC (Annexure P-4) for amendment of the written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner taking the ground that earlier written statement was prepared by his daughter, as he was not well and when they were orepaxing for the evidence they came to know that some incorrect defense has been taken in the Wiitten statement. Therefore, by the / ‘Xoposed amendment now the deihndantjpetitioner herein wants to substitute the defense totally by denying that the poultiy farm where ihe mishap took place does not belong to the petitioner herein. onviu 133/350 12/2009450900. l , mzQg gamma WW,, WW WW (Wt?) WWW Wekmg—ee—ebe—Fequeet—fou the existing written statement, amandnmnt application of th‘: pm Hon‘ble Ayex Court reported in AI. 1 have perusal the imp amendment. . it is true that by the propo wants .to substitutc ths written st dcny that the farmhousc whcre 1; the mspondents hemin died due him. Therefore, by the propose waitts to substitute the defense made. Said written statemem, yetitioner himself,’ therefore. totagl change in the written statement is e not permissible undey the law. % matter held that application for subsumting certain paragraphs case cannot be permitted. in View of the above, I do incorrecmess in the impugned amendment of the petitioner, tht be dismissed and same is dismis Sdl- L.C.BHADOO Wwmm wwwziwm } . $§<§31Ex 3‘ laof .iealned District Judge rejected the itioner relying on the Liecision 0f the Q' 1977 ec. 6:50. ugned order and application for sed amendmeilt the petitioner herem atement and now he wanis to totally ‘16 mishap took piace and the S011 of to electrocution does not helong to d amendment the petitioner hexein contrary to the admission ‘aheady was signed and ven'f1ed by the _‘he Hon‘hle Apex Court in the above amendment of written etatement by introducing entirely diderent new not iind any illegality, innrmity and order 1ejecting the application for i petition of the petitioner is liabie to aed at the admiesion stage itself. l ‘ Judge / , / / /