aia< mQ C^ ^l^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petitioif^o. '~?^&3 of 2006 Petitioner (Defendant No.l) ...••''I, ^y^" ...•-^^}: <^^fs' ..•-•'" _..• •'l^.'-'Vib^"" ..•••""' r.-';.<c''o^^-i.-"" 3".\\^.--" y^y"^ .-••'' '^•" Respondents (Plaintiffs) 2. 3. 4. Kanhaiyalal, s/o Late Rohit Kumar Chandra, Aged about 42 years, R/o Chakradhar Nagar, Near Water Tank, Raigarh Chhattisgarh Vs. Smt. Lajwanti Devi, widow of Late Amar Das, Aged about 63 years Bihari Das, s/o Late Amar Das, aged about 42 years Maadho Das, s/o Late Amar Das, aged about 46 years Lakhan Das, s/o Late Amar Das, aged about 44 years. Respondents/Plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 above, all R/o Sindhi Colony, Raigarh, Tehsil & District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5. Jagdish Kumar s/o Govind Ram aged about 22 years 6. Manohar Das s/o Goving Ram, aged about 25 years .«.t*^^ w Constiiution Cases Section i/,f;ce ofthe Advocats Siaie of Chhattisgaih 7. Omprakash s/o Govind Ram, aged about 24 years 8. Anil Kumar, s/o Govind Ram aged about 18 years :s:^;Si;R^ate;i-'3?tS'sSS; w 9. Jai Kumar, s/o s/o Govind Ram, aged about 15 years Respondents No. 5 to 9 above, all R/o Sindhi Colony, Raigarh, Tehsil& District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 10. Smt. Tilli Bai, widow of LateChelaram, aged about 48 years, R/o Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 11. Smt. Bhagwanti@Asha Devi, D/o Late Chelaram, aged about 48 years, R/o Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 12. Indira Bai, Widow of Late Lodharam 13. Jailal S/o Late Lodharam 14. Shrichand, S/0 Late Lodharam 15. Ashok,S/o Late Lodharam 16. Raj Kumar, S/o Late Lodharam Respondents No. 12 to 16 above,all R/o Near Bihari Talkies, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 17. Chhattumal, S/o Tularam, R/o Sindhi Colony, Raigarh Chhattisgarh 18. Shankarlal, S/o Tularam, R/o Near Bihari Talkies, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 19. Premi Bai, D/o Late Amar Das 20. Neeli Bai, D/o Late Amar Das 21. Janki Bai, D/o Late Amar Das Respondents No. 19 to 21 above, all R/o Sindhi Colony, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ~'i"-;S,5 'aBlF' ^- 22. Udham Das, S/o Parmool, R/o Sindhi Colony, Raigarh, Tehsil & Distict Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2.3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARY AND / OR ANY ORTHER SUITABLE WRIT OF LIKE NATURE. XI-HC-78 Hl*l(41 Sh*11th 3^'^nqRpr, »Tflu'is,Ri<iiuy .&;.f..(f.(;).^.^9. ^ 200 (; 3n^?r (raq? (l^3^Er) sn^T^rR-fi* ;raT3n^Tst>li°h -^. fvT"\'7\^ ?Ttiiwflfer<ffl^r 12.1.2007: Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal leaffied counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner by this pe{ 27.7.2006 passed by First Ci'j application filed under Order 6 Ru| written statement has been reject^d ption has challenged the order dated )?it Judge Class II Raigarh whereby le 17 of the C.P.C. for amendment in the Learned counsel for he p^t amendment petitioner had challer|ged on the ground that the sale deep claiming titte was executed withouf Considering the grounds t; India. Thus there is no substancel liabte to be dismissed. It is hereby|dismissed. <tii<iF«41-iiiidT^'fe<^l'<Rfwi< ^;3TR|TT3f1^?T ^titioner submits that by the proposed the titte of the plaintiffs/respondents on the basis of which plaintiffs were seeking due permission under the law. have heard counsel for tljie petitioner and perused the impugned order. By the impugned order the| on the ground that the same vvas case was fixed for recording of ev| lapplication for amendment was rejected filed after framing of issues and after the dence. ken by the Civil Judge Class II Raigarh for rejecting the application for arrlendment this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality or jurisdiction^l error in the impugned order which calls for interference from this Court ilinder Article 227 of the Constitution of in the petition and therefore the same is Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^l