c,yd "1c 1, i mm ....................................-...............Hi 200 ~mmm§ha<m mwm mmm WWW mmriww $aifaq3néw S.B. HON’BLE Sm! DHmENDRA W.P.lCl N0. Writ getition under Article i ! _. PETITIONER3 ' 1. PLAINTIFFS MISI-RA, J 560 OF 2008 2‘27 of the Constitution of India Vishnu Lal Son of Din'b Lal ‘Chandrakar, aged about 55 years; 2. Dalaram Son of Khamhan Lal Chandrakar, aged about 20 years; r 3. Chanden Lal Son of Khamhan Lal Chandrakar, aged about 13 years, Minor, through his Uncle ,Vishnu Lal Chandrakar, Son of Dirib Lal Chandrakar; A11 resident of Village sr‘Gobra, Tahsil Kurud, P.H.No.18, District Dhamtari (CG) 4. Smt. Rambati Bai, Widow of Din'b Bhawani La1 Lal Chan2&akar, Chandrakar Re’sideni" D/o of Village Bagaud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG) 5. Smt. Kanti Bai Wife of Bakur Ram Ghandrakar, D/o Dirib Lal Chandrakar, Resident of Senchuwa, Tahsil and District Dhamtan' (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS 1. 1 M/s Asia Power Private Limited, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad through the DeEutysManager: é? mm m zoo ~MWG§W> mmm wmm Wmm z WW wm $3i§mm : Shri K. Ramesh Krishna Son of Sunder Ramhaiva Chowdhrv, presently residing at House No.3— D, Shankaranagar, Ashoka Park, Raiyur(CG) 2. Subhash Son of Ganesh Ram Chandrakar, aged about 28 ears; 3. 4. Shiv Kumal‘ Son 0f A8hwani Chandrakar, aged about 19 oveaIS; Bhushan Lal Son of Ashwani Chandrakar, aged about 33 ears; The respondent No. 2 to 4 are resident of Sanjay Nagar Ward, Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari(CG) 5. Sorakh Ram Son of Nathela §at11ami aged about 4‘5 years 6. fansukh Son of RaJau Satnaml aged about 65 years 7. "hhabnam Son of Budhram Satnami, aged about 50 yeam; 'l‘he‘ respondent No. 5 to 7 axe 1€esident of Village Banjari, EP.H.N0.8/22, Tahsil Kurud, Dismct Dhamtari (CG) ' 8. Ashok Kumar Son of Shyam Ratan Satnami, aged about 40 years, Resident of Villag Barauda ana, Post Mam, T‘ahsil and istn'ct Raipm‘ (CG) 9. Dilip Son of Shyam Ratan Samami, aged about 36 years, Fesident of Saraipali, Peon, hrishi Upaj Mandi Saraipali, Post S araipali, Tahsil Saraipali, Histrict Mahasamund (CG) 10. rancis Son of Shyam Ratan ‘amami, aged about 32 years, esident of Village Hasrla No.2, anikchauri, Post Hasda No2, ' 1sil Abhanpur, District Raip Lu’ (JG) 11. Smt. Bisahin Bai, Widow of S‘hyam 'Ratan Safnami, aged bout 55 years, Resident of mage and Post Hasda No 2 amkchaun Tahs1l and Dlsmct Falpur (CG) 12. State of Chhattlsgarh through the Collector Dhamtan (CG) ‘ 24.6.2008 Shri PP Sahu, counsel for Shri DN Prajapati, counsel Shri Satish Gupta, GA for Heard. On the last date of he issued to the respondent No. 1 direction that the service of no counsel appearing before the the petitioners. for the respondents No. 2 to 7. e State/icspondent No. 12. i.e. 21.4.2008, notice was through the trial Court with a 'ce mav be eEected through the tnal Court on behalf of the 31W W gamma W —w197#3/2008 ~40 ooo respondent] defendant No. 1. 28.1.2008, the petitioner waS' through the counse1 represen ‘ trial Court. The petitioners have filed who has stated on oath that or Advocate appearing on behalf of to accept the notice issued by they have already received the notice from the High Court In view of above affidavit, the matter is heard in the . absence of respondent/defendar. This petition is directed against the order dated 9. 10.2007 s—II, Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari, Earlier also, vide order dated emitted to serve the notices the respondents before the an afddavit of Daya Ram Sahu, L 12.2.2008 Shri L.P. Goswami, respondents No. 1 to 4 refused this Court on the ground that LtNo. 1. passed by Civil Judge, Clas whereby application of the petiti Code of Civil Procedure for a rejected. From perusal of the have n1: petitioners/ plainlill‘s respondents/defendants for dec ‘ land and permanent injunction. an application under Order 6 ../ mending the plaint, has been record, it appears that the :d a civil suit against the .larah'on, possession of the suit The petitioners] plaintin‘ moved Rule 17 of CPC and proposed aw W gamma, mania IFS/197W3/2008 i4o,ooo. Ki - »W’. x WW, WWI—Gr,W Wm anewm (W) mmm § w) W 200 WW §€IW ammm / amendment to the eEect that th( unauthorized sale deed, has gc' suit land and has constructed p of the above construction, natw therefore, possession of the disp petiiioners/phintih‘s after remc cost of defendant No.1 and ac‘ also proposed to be amended. has been rejected by the im construction was already com when the application for temp 7.4.2005 and this application f 4.4.2007 and no explanation this amendment application. Shri DN Prajapati, lear respondents No. 2 to 7, supp that the petitioners/plaintid‘s for delay in filing the amendme From perusal of the pla' that the plaintid‘s-have filed th and thereafter, they have prop incorporate a pleading that the : defendant No. 1 on the basis of >t his named mutated over the ower plant thereon and because :e of the property has changed, uted land be handed over to the val of the construction at the :ordingly, the relief clause was However, the above application ed order on the ground that enced by the defendant Novl rary injunction was decided on r amendment has been tiled on been odered for delay in hling ma m gamma, mama WFS/197-r3/2008 #40300. m £1( z !f”s A“ " »//._ ed counsel appearing for th o e the impugned order submits e not offered any explanation t application; t of Annexure P/ 1, it is evident suit for recovery of possession sed amendment in the plaint to possession may be handed over j n p ‘ s ‘ g v aftcr removal of the constructiOI In these circumstances, in the c the amendment proposed by the petitioner does not change the nature of the suit {as the suit possession and the ground is already med for recovery of n which the application for amendment has been rejected h the tn'al Court is not tenable. In the result, the impugn d order dated 9.102007 is set aside. The matter is remanded ack to the trial Court to decide the application for amendme t of the petitioners/plaintids afresh in the light of observ accordance with law. x The petition is accordingly disposed of. ‘ ‘ous made by this-Court, in sal- r Dhirendra Misiiraf‘ Judge mam arm gamma, W IFS/197-—3/2008 i4o,ooo. f;”I 1J. I f12 .. lf“ lerected by the defendant No. 1. onsidered opinion of this Court, i