:' ^·0^.·E·fclt^?^.'^-<?v^^u\Au·Ov^^\ri^^ J-VU-^J'^"U^AJ-^U^I.V ^! stf •»• '€ ^. ^ :W;gF]^iHIC^^@IJElSl(Mi©IH l^^ ,.<^:«^'r^iiafflffi^»s(s^^ .;l:.;^^iy%i'ii©)iNc>»;^^w •T^i@[l^ER^L^a:t;;::!'w:l^^l^^ ^ ::;1 ;J;'::^£:??-'^^'M;';::. '\''' •' ':',''.; ••'•^:^:\ •:1-1. ;^,'::^^ ^^li'^'^|^ropineto:r;Afflar;B:and::II>aFt^ •^^^pc^lex^'antilpar^GUitai'ii^^ & K^MaBflelw^ ®haj^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^s ^ ^.i(<sahattisgai^.::l: l::?:r.':'^-^ ^•^v'sVffiS^S?.:.^^^.1':-.^;^^^ ^ <^iS?? /"; w^ff^' .^s^ :%^y -'<^J^: RESfONDENT :- S^amSm^ ;? I^atei0i^hu]!)ayalpiEh^i^eW|t3^ ..::,'^^edi^6yf'5&yeai^.:Testdei3t0fil;|| |%:<]ijaiii|ilSM<a|^iil^gi^ IIiBISNSWUSNBNIKSSSiB %! pEi'ii'iosMBSagUi^aiiESia •:@^^'1®N^liiali^ft — XI-HC-78 s^^pricpr, ®Tf)t<'i6,(si<riiu^< (0) -^.y?-.. *ll*lWt»>*l|ch'•'*"•••••••'••'"•'"•• ^•200(S 3n^?r q^p ('yt^st^sr) 3n^?T%r{?TOi (WTsn^raiiTR? ssnw^fltrsn^r Wltef^T WRft'il-'fet^ Tfe%TC ^sil^irsn^T 11,1,2007 Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned | learned counsei for the petitioner. 3r. Advocate with Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, This petition is directed ag^inst the order dated 6.10.2006 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class-il, CRurg by which application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of|the written pleadings and an application under Order 8 Ru!e 1 A (3) of th^ C.P.C. for fiiing documents, have been rejected. Learned counsel for the jtetitioner submits that by the proposed amendment the defendant intend^d to incorporate a pieading to this effect {hat the suit is based on a Wjil, however, no probate or succession certificate has been issued in fa\(our of the plaintiff, therefore, iegaily the plaintiff cannot be held to be ovpner of the suit house. But the Court beiow rejected the application 4"dsi" Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. with an observation that since the defen^ant has already accepted that he is the tenant of plaintiff, he is estoppe({ from disputing the land iordship of the plaintiff. The Court below aiso Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) CPC for tak sought to be produced in record, rejected the another application under ing documents on record, on the ground that since the amendment appli4ation has been rejected, the documents lave become redundant. have heard iearned coun Taking into consideration parties in the above suit and further oei for the petitioner. fie nature of dispute existing between the considering the reasons assigned by P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^IIHPTI <.b*liqi 3^ '<||*IM*I, ®T(1u'i$,Kidiyy .ki.'f....-?. 2.^.1 W^IQQC 3:n^?T<ra^?(tpf3^T) sn^rsRrRqNi craran^rOTJ; ^ ?TBTWHfeT3TI^T the Court below in the impugnsd defendant, this Court is of the opir of jurisdiction by the Court below grave injustice to the parties, wh under Articte 227 of the Constitutk the petitioner is in fact a lega! qs petitioner at any stage. With the aforesaid observal substance is hereby dismissed at ^raferi^ iim?rf fffei^ <f^R?R ^ ^ grf^ira.n^T |rder for rejecting the applications of the lion that there is no error in the exercise bvhich may occasion faiiure of justice or ich warrants interference by this Court >n of india as the amendment sought by estion and that can be agitated by the ions, the instant petition being devoid of he admission stage ifseif. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.