(‘r/’*/o’aL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH ‘ Writ Petition (C) No. 15 of 20a PE’I‘ITIONER/ : Smt Sunita Gupta, (Plaintim K/Wiféof RS. Gupta, Aged about 50 years, R/o J-S6, L1G Colony, Indore, District: Indore, Madhya Pradesh, Presently residing at E—l/ 1, Government Residential Complex, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. - Versus — RESPONDENTS/: 1 Rajpur Development (Defendants) / Authority, Through its Chief Executive Officer, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Smt. Sitadevi Motwani, W/o Late Dhanraj Motwani, Aged about 40 years, R/o C‘40/ 1, Sector—1, Devendra Nagar, Raipm‘, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CON$TITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITIWRITS, DmECTIONS ETC., IN THE TURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARI AND OR ANY E \ \ XI—HC—78 g , Wm HW,WT¢,W )KJD’ S 200?— mm (W) mwm WWW mmmm WW§W®W %31%1:3n%:1 Learned counsel for thr Hire Purchase alreadv existed executail even after 18-1‘200‘7 Shri Rajeev Shrivastavz Heard 011 admiSsion. By this petition, the p: 8-11—2006 passed bv the Raipur 1'11 Civi‘l Suit No. 3 amendment of the plajnt of t1 Leaxned counsel for tl' flied for possession on the a allotted to the petitioner m1 1977, however an applicatio 25—7-2006 to amend the reii the possession be delivexed a same has been rejected fir question couid be claimed by the yeax 1985 and the same limitation which cannot be a1 delive necessary formalities. ln thes have allowed the amendment l have heard the leari perused the impugned order. was filed in the year 1985, s‘ the petitioner for tiling the ame before the appropriate Co&and F mu. 1, Advocate for the petitioner, :t'it'ioner has impugned the order dated 5’11 Additional Disttict Judge (Fflicj, 9A/‘2004 whereby the application for Le petitioner has been rejected. Le petitioner submits that the suit was llegations that the disputed house was ier Hire Purchase Scheme in the vear h for amending the plaint was filed on 2f clause of the plaint to the effect that fter execution of the lease deed and the stly on the ground that the relief in the petitioner when he filed the suit in has been preferred after the period of IOVV€Cl . i petitioner submits that the pleading of in the plaint and the lease deed can be Ly 0t the possession after fulfilling .e circumstances, Court below ought to in the relief clause. 16d counsel for the petitioner. l have It is not in dispute that initiaily the suit ubsequently the plaint was returned to XI—HC—78 HW,W,W ‘ W...‘.E€9H9;.2.$./¥OO§ WW a1 200 WW(W) WWW mm WW swatmanw WWW ‘ ‘ %31%H311%¥T mL”, w M (”N W ultimately in the above circunwtances, th€ suit was med in the year 1995 before the trial Court. it is also not disputed that the evidence of the plainfjff has aiready been ciosed and the case is f1xed for defence evidence. in the afomsaid circtmstances, considen’ng the fact that the petitioner proposes amendment in the piaint nearly after 2'2 years of Iiiing the above suit and that too when the suit is fixed for recording evidence of defence Witnesse s, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proposed amendine nt has been rightly rejected in View of the provisions to Order 6 Ruie 1‘7 of the Code of Civil Procedure and there is no substance in this petition and the same is dismissed in limnle. Sci/— Dhirendra Mishra t Judge P.T.O.