IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4-é2é OF 2004 Rana Udyog, A proprietorship Firm, 50, Industrial Es£ate Bhilai, Tehsil 85 District Durg (C.G.) Shri B.B. Shangare, 6’“ §§y6§ e9;g Proprietor 50, Industrial M/s Estate Rana Bhilai, Udyog 8§ Tehsil 8L District Durg (C.G.) VS RESPONDENT: Amforge Industries Limited, a (Plaintiff) co’mpany duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Union Bank of India Building, 6th Floor, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai (MS) inter—alia amongst other branches having its branch office at 416, Raheja Chambers, Free Pace Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra; Through Shri Ajit Pandurang, son of Shri Balvaikar, Company Secretary, Emforge Industries Limited. PETITIONERS: 6/ 1. M/S (Defendants W6 / a WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. C% , 2 ,i / XI—HC—78 mu‘w (Wt-I) - mwm mam wwwm Wégwawggwtfgsm- ~ - 05.91.2@05 Mi$s4 Sharmila Sin hai, counsnd for thE pstitionar. The patitionsr has prEfEJ‘Ied this pstitiml under Articla 227 of ths Const tution of India bEing aggriavml by ths order—dated 27‘ _.2004 passsd by learned 7th Additional DiStrict Jud e (Fast Track Court), Durg by which the laarnad A(1ditio11a1 Dimrict Judga anowed the application of £116 plainti f1 respondmlt harein filéd 1111 (161‘ Ordea‘ 6 R1116. 17 of CP for ammldmsnt in the. plaint, howsver) the pEtitioneridef€ndant was not allowad to makg tha cogSc—tquéntil am€11dm€nt in his writmn statement against the andfsd pharlings of €116 plaintiff I have Emard thE 16 rntsd 001111361 for the patitionmx the petitionar submits th&t when Eearnad trial cou allowtid the applicaiion of 1116 piajntiff for amanding tle plain? and tha plaintiff WaS allowed to a€1d Faragra 11’s 6A f0 6E, in ’ihat sd‘mation Without hoaring fho p6 itioner tho trial court was not right in not allowing ih potitionor for filing ropiy of tho amonc‘md pleadings, t at too without giving any oiiportunity of hoaring 1> Leammd counsel d consoquentia1 amendmant. Tho point raisod § the. learnod counsol for the potitionor appé‘arS to 13o €a$onablo. in Th6 first inStanco, loai‘nnd trial court orig t not to havo paSsei’L tho $aid ornor without considori 1g tho rcquoot, if any mado, by M I ”Fir, a , r l o a i XH I-C——78 man mmréa the upe‘ti't‘ioner/défenda‘lt for filing ther reply of the amsndéa pktad'ngsa ’E‘herCfors, the 1as"t‘§¢rtion‘ ”of th€ ' imnngned order that the. defendant isnot allowed to file th§ consequential reply i11€ga1; séme is hereby s ‘the petitioner/defendant, moves an application before the trial court for filing reply of‘the amended pleadings then r trial court, should cons Emm f€® V $e'ifawatté3i observation and direction, the of. , NoJ4942/Q4 iisposed of. Certified co’py‘ as p3r rulest V' der that application and decide ‘ the same‘after hearing both the parties in the matter. With the aforEsaid petition stands ‘disposad Consequently, M.W.P. _No.9225/04 also stand Sd/- L.c.BHADoo ‘W Judge ’ . of the amended pleadings is et aside and it is directed that if "wmm