@D BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'rrISG AT BILASPUR (c.G._) w.P.(221)_No. \%% of2011 PETITIONERS /1. Bhanmoti, aged about 70 years, LDEFENDANTS) Wd/o. Gahir, Caste, Kondh / 2. Sona Bai, Wd/o. Sardharam, age about 48 years, Caste-Kondh Kunwarmoti, aged about 3O years, W/o. Gajpati, Caste-Kondh Gajpati, S/o. Dhansingh, aged about 35 years, Caste-Kondh, AII R/o. village Birendabari, P.C. No.9, R.I. Circle Bhawarpur, Tahsil- Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Ramhabai, aged about 60 years, / D/o. Gahir, Kaste Kondh, Occupation-House wife, R/o. Purshottampur, P.C. No.8, R.I. Circle Bhanwarpur, Tahsil Basha, District Mahasamund (C.G.) QLAINTIFF) Mongara Bai, aged about 35 years, W/o. Digari Kondh, R/o. Village Jarra, P‘C. No.39, R.I. Circle Sankara, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C.G.) ARH d /3. Kewarabai, aged about 32 years, W/o. Nurtan Kondh, R/o. Village Chanat, P.C. No.9, .R.I. Circle Bhanwarpur, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) Hemadri, aged about 27 years, W/o. Parmanand. Kondh, R/o. Village Godmarra, P.C. No.37, R.I. Circle Sankara, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Coliector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) /4. /5. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WW WRIT PETITION (227) NO. 188 OF 2011 ETITIONERS : Bhanmoti and others. (DEFENDANTS) ygt§u§ RESPONDENTS : Ramhabai and others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICm 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA [Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present 3 Shri Raghvendra Pradhan,counselforthe petitioners. Shri G.D. Vaswani, Government Advocate for the State/respondent No.5. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 14 day of January, 201 1) Heard on admission. 2. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 22-10-2010 passed by the Second Civil Judge, Class-ii, Saraipaii, District Mahasamund in Civil Suit No. 16-A/2006 allowing the respondent’s/plaintiff’s application tiled under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the CPC’). 3. The plaintiff instituted a suit claiming relief of declaration against the defendants to the effect that the suit property is joint property of the plaintiff and the defendants. Further by way of amendment, the plaintiff sought partition and separate possession of the above land. The above application was allowed on the ground that the amendment will not change the nature of the suit, it will save further litigation, and the evidence is still to commence. 4. Having heard leamed counsel for the petitioners and having perused the order impugned, l do not tind any substance in the petition warranting interference in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order impugned is in no way prejudice to the P interest of the petitioners. The petitioners are at liberty to amend their written statement accordingly. 5. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity. illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 6. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby rejected. No order asto costs. Sdl- N.K. Agrawal Judge &3L~c, @