BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF v1 CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l V_VRIT PET:T:O:$%O.L”3¢‘ /2oo_6 \ WRIT PETITmN ‘ CONSTITUTION UNDER ARTiCLEs OF [NUT/$5 22%“ TOF THE Harvinder Singh Rai, aged about 62 years, Son of Shri Sohan Singh (Retired Ma]or) Prop. Raigarh Sainik Transport Gram — Punjipathra, Post Samaruma, Tah. Gharghora, DEstrEct Raigarh (Chhaxtisgarh) Sa}ji P.V. Accountant Cum Manager, Raigarh Saintk Transport, Gram Panjipathra, w V 1 - f7“ $&ppgwwzwr / Samaruma. Tah. T 1 Gharghora, District Raigarh ( c c ) VERSUS w Post RESPONDENT Anii Kumar Garg, aged about /£§’3MBM T; pE L i 35 years, son of Shri Govind Ram Agrawai, Propr. Shri Shyarn Meters, Deaier — Tata And Leiand Spare Parts, Dheernrapur, Chowk, Raigar'n, Tahsii and District Raigarh (C.G .) _ x ' XI-HC—22 Wm WW WHI%H 18.8.2006 Shri Awadh Tripathi and Smt. Indira Tn'pathi, counsel for th€ petitioners. Heard on admission. Order nassed as follows : ORA 1_1& f1) This netition has be€1 Constitution of India. chalk 20.7.2006. passed in Civil S Judge. Raigarh (CG). It app the learned Distlict Judge, a framed in this case, framed J the narties to adduce additic issues. if desired bv them. (2) Learned counsel for earlier issues and the sub similar and this exemise u appears to be futile. He also submits that the District Judge ‘ ‘ issues at the stage of gassing of erred in law in mcastinq th< the Judgment. L ORDER 8.20061 a filed under Article 227 of the inging the legality of order dated uit No. 9—B/2006 by the District ears that bv the imnugned order, fter striking out the issues earlier 1ew issues and thereafter directed inal evidence on the newly named the petitioners submit that the seauent issues are more or less ndertaken bv the District Judge n XI—HC—22 subseuusnt issuad framed bV {4) In tha oniuion of this (3} I have gone through the earlier issues and the the District Judge. Court. the subsequent issues are more soeciflc and if the Court has exercised its iurisdiction under Order 14. Rule 5 of tht framing the new issues. it h Darties to adduce additions illegalitv in such order pas: iurisdiction exercised bv the Drovisions of Order 14. Rule the Court mav at anv time b issues or frame additional iss and all such amendments necessarv for determining th the narties shall be so made the Court mav also. at anv ti out anv issues that anneal introduced. (5) In the oninion of this C in the netition flled under f India. The netition is dismisst r Code of Civil Procedure and after as given onnortum'tv to both the l evidence, §ed bv the District Judge. District Judge is supported by the 5 of C.P.C.. which provides that efore nassing a decree amend the ues on such terms as it thinks fit. or additional issues as mav be e matters in controversv between or flamed. It also nmvides that me before massing a decree. strike r to it to be wronqlv framed or ourt. there annears to be no merit ‘ mole 227 of the Constitution of :d in limine. I do not find anv The Sdl- Sunil Kumal‘ Sinha Judge