ingie Benc T BILASP .P L . 22 No. Zg Distrct ‘Ra’igarh.’ C'.G.) i ( . Sheikh Kalimullah, ‘S/o, SheikhSharifullah, ‘Aged about 35 years, R/o, Madhubanpara, Raigarh, District Raigarh. (C.G.) Versus espondents : ‘ 1. A med Khan, S/o, Subhan Khan, Aged abOut 45 years,’ R/o, Madhubanpara, Raigarh, District Raigarh. (C.G.) (Plaintiff no. 1'before’c0urt below) ‘ 2 State of Chhattisgarh Through Colleétor,‘ Ralgarh D1str1ct Ralgarh (C G) (Respondent no 7 before court below) (Note Plamtlff no 2 and Defendants no 1 & 6 before I the court below are not bemg impleaded as parties before this court as they are now deceased ] PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF TH CONSTITUTEON OF INDIA ‘ S h A UR R E Petitioh‘er‘s z « 1. . Sheikh Waliullah S/o $heikh Sharifuuah Defendants no. 2-5 ‘ Aged about 5o years R/o, Madhubanpara, before the court. Ra1garh D1str1ct Ralgarh (C G) be1;ow 2. .Sheikh Rahir‘nunahi, S/o', Sheikh Sharifullah, Aged aibout 45 years, R/o, ' Sarangarh Distu‘ctkaigafh. (C.G.) Shelkh Hablbullah (wrongly mentloned 1n HIGH COURT OF gHHATTISGARH AT Bl A5PUR Wnt Petition $227) No 232 of 26% Shelkh Walnuiah and ethers Versus Ahmed Khan and anqther PETITidNERs > RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF T E CONSTITUIO ‘ I DHA ( B Hon ble Mr N K Agarwal, J) NOF Present ‘ . Mr Mr Adxi Amat Mmhaj Sharma counsei counse! f0! for the respondent petmoners No 1 Mrr S R J Jalswal PL for the Statelrespondent No 2 ORAL ORDER (24.06201 1) Héard. 1 Instant petmon cans in question the Iegatity and prépriety of the order dated 3 122008 (Annexure P 1) passed by lVth Crvrl Judge Class H Rargarh In CM! Sun No 84 A/2007 whereby and whereunder ‘resnondent No 1 e apphcatrons under Order 6 Rule 1? and under Order 7 Rute 14 for amendment In the plalnt and for takrng documents on record were allowed. 2 Bnef facts of the case are as under Respond declaration of their tltle and for declaratlon of sale deed dated i 6 2 1970 ae vord and for permanent Injunction Durlng oendency of the surt the apphcat Inst g relref of ent No 1 along wrth one Hallma Bl flled a surt age ners and Shelkh Sanfulla and Khaleel Ullah seekln the petrtlo lon‘s for amendment of L the plalnt and for admitting certain documents flied by the respondent ; No t were allowed by the trial Court Vlde Impugned order datedf rthe petitioner would '3 12 2008 Hence this petition F 1 - y ‘ 7" 3 submit Shri neither Mlnha} proposed learned counsel amendment appearing nor documents to sought to bet produced by the respondent No‘l were retevant for the purpose of: ' . decisioh of the present case and the tria! Court has cmitted gros jurisdictional érror in allowing both the applicalions. 4. On the other hand Shrl Sharma learn d counsel appearing for the respondent No 1 would submlt pettloners as well as the respondent No 1 are claiming tttle through Wasrr Ahmed and therefore the facts and documents relatlngt earller lltrgatron flled by Wasrr Ahmed and Raza Ahmed are relev ht and the learned tnal Court has not commltted any illegallty: In allowrng both the applrcatrons. 5. l have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including Impugned order 6.- The surt was filed in the year 1997 Although there Is delay In firing the above amendment applications as well as application for n record but looking to the relevancy of takmg documents o amendment and the documents m the considered opinion of this Court the learned trial Court has not commrtted any itlegality in ns warranting interference allowmg the above amendment applicatto of this court under Article 227 of the Consttution of lndia oise of its V 7. it is well settled pnncrple of law that thas Court in exer superwsory lurisdlction under Article 227 of the Constitution of india t should refrain itself from interfering With the order passed by the Court W below except in such oases where perversity, rllega ity, irreoularity or not l in the present case 8. Therefore the petition being Without substance is liable to be g and is hereby dismissed However the petitioners are permitted to file § ments in rebuttal if so p urisdiotionai error is writ large on the face of the record which is amendment as well as the docu om s advrsed, before the trial Court Within a period of three months from : todayi I I Sd/- i fr: i 9. No order as to costs. N.K.Agarwa1 1 ' Q 'L ’ ’1‘ ‘ Judge