HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (Artl227) No.2750 ot2010 PETITIONERS: Plaintiffs RESPONDENTS: Defendants 1. 2. 3. Present: Shri D.N. Prajapati, counsel Shri Rajendra Tripathi, -Versus- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Daljit Singh, S/o Kundan Singh, aged about 45 years, Dilbag Singh, S/o Kundan Singh, aged about 40 years Satvinder Singh, S/o Tara Singh, aged about 55 years, R/o Ward No.4, Sanjay Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, District State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Durg (CG) Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai Nagar, Durg (CG) Harodeep, S/o Namodeep Smt. Saraswati, W/o Harodeep Smt. Gunja, W/o Sadanand, Sadanand, S/o Shri Neelo Prem Kumar, S/o Jethul, Premsheela, W/o Prem Kumar, Santosh, S/o Vasu, Smt, Uma, W/o Santosh Shri Alindro, S/o Chandra, Smt. Kunti, W/o Alindro Bahadur, S/o Lalu, Sushila W/o Bahadur Smt. Bal Naik, S/o Dharmu, Smt. Indu, W/o Balnaik, No.3 to 9 are all R/o Sanjay Nagar, Ward No.4, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg (CG) for the petitioners. Panel Lawyer for fhe State. Sinele Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra,^ ORAL ORDER i(17-6-2010) 1. The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constita-ition of India and prayed for setting aside the order of, ,'• ,-rW. '"^ ^tR ^'^";;:-%^ Annexure-P/1 and to allow applications preferred by the petitioners before the trial Court under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 and under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC. 2. The grievance of the petidoners is that the petitioners filed the above civil suit in the year 2006. They moved an application in the year 2009 and prayed for deleting , the name of Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Durg, respondent No.2 from the array of the respondents. They also prayed for araendment in the relief clause to incorporate some additional reliefs as detailed in fhe application. However, both the applications have been rejected by the Court below. 3. Heard learnedcounsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order, plaint (Annexure-P/2) as also application under Order 1 Rule 10 (Annexure-P/3) and application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Secdon 151 ofthe CPC (Annexure-P/4). 4.1tappear8 that the petitioners have filed the above suit ui the year 2006 and in the said suit, defendants No.3 to 9 have been proceeded ex-parte and only the respondent corporafion is contesting the suit. To a pointed question put by the Court as to what prejudice is Ukely to be caused to the petitioners |if the corporation continues in the suit, learned counsel for the petifioners was unable to show any prejudice or injustice that may occasion to the plaintiffs. 5. So far as the petitioners' applieation for amending relief clause in the plaint is concerned, the trial Court has rejected the aforesaid prayer with an observation that reliefs which the petitioners seek to incorporate by way of amendment is already fhere in the plaint. 6. On careful perusal of the application and the relief clause in the plaint, the reasons assigned by the trial Court for rejecting the amendment application appear fo be jystified as relief which was sought to be incorporated by way of amendment has already claimed by the petitioners in the plaint. | 7. For the aforesaid reason, I fmd no illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which may cause manifest injustice to the plaintiffs warranting interference in exercise of supervisoiy jurisdiction "under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. —- 8. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Barve Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge n