?N£lE »^ '^ •fe-; &»B» IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0'-" •' /2011 PETITIONER (>1 ooVw' ^ 1( Jagadamba Prasad S/o Kishan Lal -.-<ck.> Agrawal, aged about 45 years, R/o .<"'".f'^>' ''"•;;^--:'>"..-' ...-"" Pendra , Tahasil- Pendra Road, Dist- y>~'^a ^ ..y- /'ff\^'/.••-•'(.c'- ^ -•••""'l^o1'^ 0\ ^'' ./•-'" ^ ^ f' RESPONDENTS Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Versus 1. Harbansh Singh S/o Mehar Singh aged about 65 years 2. Panja Singh S/o Mehar Singh aged about 55 years both R/o Purana Gaurella, Tahasil - Pendra Road, Dist - Bilaspur C.G. .WRrT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .:L_ w' iaaa>. /" , , ^u rt^s t!P ,SPUR stPetit|onl22D,NaS317of2011 Jaaadamba Prasad Harbansh Sinah and another U.IBIT osrr ^ll '^^'i^^ (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. ^ Present : [vir. Y'ogendra Chatuwedi, counsel forth'e petitioner. (21.10.2011) Heard on admission. 1. Instant petition, fiied under Artlcie 227 of {he Constitution of inciia, cajis in question the iegaiity and propriety of the order dated 25.07.2011 passed by Civii Judge, C!ass-ll, Pendraroad, Distt. Bilasour in Civil Appea! No. 47-A/20QO whereby and whereunder the petiticners/pialntifts' application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civi! Proceaure has been dismissed by the trial Court. 2. Tne petitioner has filed suit for Injunction against the respondents ciaiming relief of injunction against respondent No. 1 imer alia on the around pursuant to aareement of saie dated 8.1.1998 he is in possession of the suit property but respondent No. 1 is Interfering in his possession. After a period of more than 10 years, that too; after commencement of trial appllcation for amendment of piaint was filefi by the petttioner seeking relief of specific performancs of contraci aaainst respondent No. 2. 3. The triai court after hearing the parties rejected the application for amendment of plaint vide order irnpugned. Hence this petitlon. nave ne counsel for the petitioner and perused the order imDuaned. 5. ^. indisputably, no relief has been claimed by the petitioner against respondent No. 2 in the suit t'iled originaily against f€-S^et& V: ^.. . ^ ^ *> •;.. /i° ,y ^'^J7 respondents. Now after more than 10 years he wants to amend the plaint seeking relief of specific performance of contract against respondent.No. 2 in the same suit, that too, after commencement of trial, therefore, the Tribunai has not committed any Eliegaiity in smissing the above application by obsen/ing petitioner may file separate suit against respondent No. 2. 6. In view of above, I do not find any illegality m the order impugned passed by trial Court warranting interference of this Court under Articie 227 of the Constitution of india. 7. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its superv'isory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constltution of India, should refrain itseif from interfering with the order passed by the Court beiovA,', except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is Vi/rit large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition being without substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs,