HiGi-i CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2% Writ Petition (C) No. 2469 of 2007 Petitioner : Devendra Kumar Atias Hemraj Singh, Defendant No. 1 aged 36 years, S/o Tribhuwan Singh R/o Banaura, Tah.‘Distt. Raigarh. Versus WRIT PETlTlON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTiTUTlON OF lNDlA Single Bench : Hon’ble Justice Shri Satish K. Agnihotri Present: Mr. Upendra Bharat, Advocate forthe petitioner. ORDER (Passed on this 23'“ of April, 2007) ‘l. By this petition, tiled under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 15.1.2007 (Annexure P/1), passed by the 3"“ Civil Judge, Class-ii, Raigarh in Civii Suit No. ‘l 8 N2006, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 1 for amendment of the written statement was rejected. 2‘ The case of the petitioner is that the mother of the respondents No. 1 to 6 tiled a suit before the 15‘ Civil Judge, Class’ii, Raigarh (MP) for declaration of title on 58.86 (Annexure PM). After death of mother, Smt. Bhuribai, the legal heirs of the plaintiff, namely, respondents No. ‘i to 6 were brought on record. The petitionerfdefendant No. 1 filed a written statement under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civii Procedure, 1908 (hereinatter referred to as “the CPC“) before the 1" Civii Judge, Ciass-ii, Raigarh for amendment in the written statement. Respandents : 1. Bodhram S/o Karam Pal Singh, aged 42 Plaintiffs Nod 1 to 6 years 2. Bund Singh, 44 years, S/o Karam Pai Singh. 3. Savitribai, age 44 years D/o Karam Pal Singh 4. Satya Bhama, age 35 years D/o Karam Pal Singh 5. Khemabai, age 28 years, D/o Karam Pal Singh 6. Sudha Bai, age 26 years, Dlo Karam Pal Singh 7. Tribhuwan Singh, age 5O years S/o v Bahadur Singh (Defendant No. 2) All Resident of Village Banaura, Tahsil District Raigarh C‘G. Bi- 3. The trial court, a§1er hearing all the parties and considering the facts, held as under: “uW‘laW—iaamamnwmiaamwan mméawaan‘mimmrswawfmisn asumanansm$mwrmsimmiés @faawqa‘ummms‘mawWamW%I wanmamumaslmwmqa#wwawi" maismmawwaaasénaiwuma‘é‘iw WW lumaiaw‘rmaairrgaévs‘an‘aflné mammm'anrnmamuw Wmmémummwmslmm amasaimmaémsmiqmmwmaa ‘a‘l swim am $m‘a5—1 gm 1321 31m? ta arm‘s aréw—smi7mu%mmmmmsi" 4. I have gone through the pleadings and documents appended thereto. After hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the finding recorded by the court below is just, proper and unexceptionable. There is no infirmity, iliegality orjurisdictional error in the impugned order. lt is well settled principle of law that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court has jurisdiction of judiciai review of the order passed by the Court below, in the event, there is manifest and apparent error on the face of the proceedings based on the clear ignorance or utter disregard to the provisions of law or there is grave failure ofjustice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby. Further, this Court can also entertain the petition in its supervisory jurisdiction if there is perversity, irregularity or illegality in the process of decision, not in the decision itself. M Sdl- I ‘ Satish K. Agmhotn Judge The writ petition is accordingly dismissed summarily.