^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUIt CHHATTISGARH . L!£^2. PEl'ITIONERS Defendants /'.0o'i^ ^ d^ i:::^lwy4- .-"'")' \ ^ L^ ^ ^uje' W. P.10 N0. ^J.ts>..^.l.^.../206^ Yuvraj Singh Chandrakar, S/o Bahadur Singh Aged about 50 years R/o Village Aktai, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, (C.G.) Yogeshwar S/o Bahadur Singh Aged about 42years R/o Village Chicha, Tahsil Pat.an, DistrictDurg, (C.G.). Rohit Kumar S/o Bahadur Singh Aged about 48 years R/o Village Aktai, Tal-isil Patan, District Durg, (C.G.). ^ 5^' <0 Geeta Bai W/o Dwrika D/o Bahadur Singh Aged aboutS? years R/o Villagf —«)* Patan, 8s District Durg, (C.G.). Aged aboutS? years R/o Village Myra, Tahsil --^UiA 5. Kamla Bai W/o Bhagwati S/o Bahadur Singh Aged about^^years R/o Village Bhansuli, -luul Tahsil Patan, District Durg, (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Ayodhya Prasad S/o Sevak Ram aged Plalmtiffs •' about 67 years. 2. Bhukhan Lal S/o Savak Ram aged about 65 years. 3. Dhnna Lal S/o Savak Ram aged about 60 years. 4. Sukhru Ram S/o Savak Ram aged about 57 years. ' 5. Heman &hu @ Lal S/o SavaK Rain aged about 65 years. •-.^ri^a^ijuftd^ ^;^;^'''1''- ^ .6. Tamskar S/o Savak Ram aged about 46 years. /'7. Chaturthi Bai D/o Savak Ram, aged about 58 years. ' Respondents No. 1 to 7 are R/o Village-Tarsiva, Tahsil SE District-Dhamtari (C.G.) Keval Singh Chandrakar S/o Govind Chandrakar aged about 38 years. ^9. Dhaneshwar Singh Chandrakar S/o Govind Chandrakar aged about 27 years. 10. Ku. Kumari Bai D/o Govind Chandrakar aged about 50 years. ' 11. Arun Kumar S/o Govind Chandrakar agcd about 50 years. Respondents No. 8 to 11 are R/o Village-Kamroud Post Mandroud, Tahsil SE District-Dhamtarl C.O. ,12. Sate of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Durg, District Durt, C.G - oc j" v A ?''u'1 WR]:T PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIOI? OF INDIA ' -HC—78 3Tit¥I^lf?;iW Tiqi 311^1 WlN? >A -3^-%n?n?TCT, ^ftgrrs, fsiyirey ..u^.47:.."^ 200 ~^- 7 (-sqtna^) FRfWflftt'iffl^ ^qfwin 'qw-ffv rew TtSRiR ^sif'msrow S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Aa^irwal 25.08.2009 | Shri RKJain, Advocate forjthe petitioners. Shri CR Sahu, Advocate fc^ respondent No. 1 to 11. Shri PK Bhaduri, Panel Lsn|vyer for State/respondent No. 12. With the consent ofthe paijties, the matter is heard finally. The instant petition is direc^ted against the part of order dated 22.01.2007, passed by llnd Civi| Judge Class I, Durg, in civil suit No. 66A/06, whereby and v|?hereunder the application for amendment preferred by the re^pondent plaintiff was allowed by the trial court. Shri Jain, learned coun^al appearing Tor the petitioners would submit that the amendnjient was wrongly been allowed inasmuch as the contends of qmendment may prejudlce to the rightsofthepetitioners. | Per contra, Shri Sahu supported the order passed by the court below. After hearing the counsel dppearing for the parties and after perusing the record, in the considered opinion of this court, this petition has no merit. The amendment application has been moved by the respondent before the commencement of trial and the trial court has allowed the sai9 application after consldering the .•---^,-K . Vs v WV iiT uc( '?s? •<ff-4sri<T. ^Til^j'fs'. fN?w'CR CT) SITO; ^i'fe'm? Tiqi 31TOI'astTO' WBi- Sahu ^iNwft1! tiilRTi ^'•fe<3»Tf'sp •^stfman^i submissions made by the ^arties. The petitioners are free to ^p^ ^ ..,..& ffle an application for *ic Msvo ww3 (iat amendment. The petition has »«tftfeBrt-^tte»fourtbelow ha1 not committed and i"-®9"larityor ^illegalityt^fti^^tjpvoke extraordii^ary jurisdiction of this court under 'AWU^^?* tte Constitution of fridia. It iS ^vell settled principle o1 its supervlsoryjurisdiction under the Court betow, except in suchj irregularity or jurisdictional erroii law that this Court, in exercise of Article 227 of the Constitutlon of India, should refrain itself from injterfering with the order passed by cases where perversity, illegality, is writ large on the Tace of the record, which is not in the presenp: oase. The petltion deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is directed that if the ^etitioners move an application for consequential amendment with|n a period of one Month from today, then the trial court shall d^cide the same in accordance with law on its own merits. No order ?s to costs. j N.K. Agrawal Judge