HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU fc. WRIT PETmON (2271 N0. 4370 OF 2011 PETITIONER Defendants RESPONDENTS Plaintiffs 4. 7. 8. 10. 11. 12. VERSUS Mst. Farida, Wd/o Abdul Kuddus, aged about 61 years, Isteyak Aalam, S/o Abdul Kuddus, aged about 47 years Mst. Sujata, D/o Abdul Kuddus, (W/o Ashraf), aged about 46 years, (Correct name is Sujahat but due to mistake wrongly mentioned as SuJata in court below) Shabnam, D/o Abdul Kuddus (Wd/o Shabbir), aged about 42 years Asfak Aalam, S/o Abdul Kuddus, aged about 44 years Shagufta, D/o Abdul Kudus, (W/o Javed), aged about 39 years Shahin, D/o Abdul Kudus, aged about 40 years Petitioner No. 1 to 7 are R/o Village Basna, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.). Mst. Hajiyani Amina, aged about 75 years, Wd/o Abdul Rajjak, (Correct name is Hajiyani Amna but due to inistake wrongly inentioned as Hajiyani Amina in court below). Imfan Aalam, aged about 41 years, S/o Abdul Rajjak, (Correct name is Irfan but due to mistake wrongly mentioned as Imfan in court below). Mst. Shirin, aged about 37 years, D/o Abdul Rajjak Mst. Shayra, aged bout 46 years, D/o Abdul Rajjak Ittekhab Aalam, aged about 48 years, S/o Abdul Rajjak, Petitioner No. 8 to 12 are R/o Village Pitiyajhar, Mahasamund, Tahsil Mahasamund, District Raipur, (C.G.). Smt. Fatima Begam, aged about 45 years, Wd/o Late Shri Ibrahim, Housewife, R/o Lalpur Road, Beside Aakanksha Video, Bagbahra, Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (M.P.) (NowC.G.). Idrish, aged about 46 years, S/o Ibrahim, Shabbir, aged about 42 years, S/o Ibrahim, Hanif, aged about 38 years, S/o Ibrahim, Wahid, aged about 32 years, S/o Ibrahim, •y^ "y"^ ^-.- 6. All are occupation Business, R/o Daman (Kendra Shashit), At Present R/o Main Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF JNDIA, (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Mr. P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 6. Respondents No. 1 to 5 not noticed. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 08/08/2011) By this petition under Article 227 of the' Constitution of India petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 16/3/2011 passed by First Additional District Jud.ge, Mahasamund (C.G.) relating to dismissal of amendment application filed on behalf of the petitioners/defendants. Order impugned, copy of other applications especially plaint and written statement filed on behalf of the petitioners perused. In case of agreement to sell of house situated at Nazul land by encroacher, present petitioners have sufficiently pleaded their defence in written statement. Considering the written statement and its pleading, I do not find any need of amendment on behalf of the petitioners requiring any interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction in the order impugned. Consequently, petition is liable to be dismissed and is he.reby dismissed. No order as to costs. I T.P. Sharma Judge ^\/ -