HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) NO. 7092 OF 2011 PETITIONERS Plaintin‘s RESPONDENTS Defendants $53 1A. 1B. 1C. VERSUS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 ‘OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Rajknmari D/o Bramhanand, aged about 45 years, R/o Tilu‘apara, Raipur, Tahsil 85 Disin'ct Raipun Krishna Kumar S/o Brmhanand, aged about 35 years, R/o Shashikant S/o Bramhanand, aged about 3O ycam, Indmm' Bai w/o Bramhanand, aged about 65 yeals, A11 petitioners am R/o Ambagarh Chowki, Tahsil Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (C.G,). Sajendra @ Dinesh Kumar, aged about 24 years, S/o Ram Naxayan Pandey, R/o near Santoshi Nagar, Dr. L.N. Dixit, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil 8n District Raipur (C.G.). State of Madhya Pradesh Now C.G. through Collector, Durg Now (C.G.). Sadaram Dujeram Verma, R/o Morid, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.). Yashwant Sahu, aged about 32 years, S/o Anandram Sahu, Smt. Thaneshwari Sahu, aged about 28 yeats, w/o Shri Yashwant Sahu, Both R/o village Morid, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.). Presentz- Mr. Abhay ’I‘iwari, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 2. Respondents No. 1, 3, 4 85 5 not noticed. 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constituu‘on of India petin'oners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 18/8/ 2011 passed by District Judge, Durg in civil suit No. 5A/2011 whereby application for amendment in plaint relating to relief and Court fees has been dismissed by the District Judge on (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) ORDER (Passed on 30/ 11/2011) the ground that suit is pending since 1989 and petitioners has deliberately tiled this application after considemble delay Without explaining the same. Mr. Abhay Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioners and Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, P.L. for the State] respondent No. 2 ale heard. Order impugned, copy of the application, copy of the plaint and copy of the mply perused. Present petitioners/plaintiifs have already amended his plaint vide Para-13(B) and 13(C) but at the time of such amendment present petitioners not amended or not filed application for amendment of his plajnt relating to same cause of action. mnsidemg the old pendency of suit, conduct of the petitioners who have firstly amended their plaint relating to same cause of action and again med applicah‘on for amendment on the same cause of action, by dismissing application Court below has not committed any illegality requiring any interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Consequently, petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. However, considering the pendency of civil suit since 1989 trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and decide the case as early as possible preferable within 6 months and in case of any non cooperation on behalf of any ~ party Court shall take appropriate coercive step to decide the old dispute. No order as to costs. Certihed copy as per rules. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge 3H