.\^~^-\^^\/~^\.'^\^^ 1». 1 ^: m^ IN THB HtGH CO^M^M^iOtjl^rN^ ^HHA'I^Sti^^ '^•';.^At^it^iff^7;1'' :''r^fi^ W.P.NO. ^^ S3 / 2005 •€ PETITIONER ^^y^- ^.y^ ^•;^%^''-1:. 1»~ .'. ' '. • :^--l,^.ftK\" .^"^;§^ .•jw f>y y ^"^y BNiKarani, Arora, W/o~"Va2;irchancl Af6l-a,'". • Aged abo'uf'48 :^ai>s,;:'. .,:;.,:,. •;•': .' , • .,.' .'R/p' Industrtal Estate, Housing ;NirrhEh-! Golpny, Nandini Road, Bhilai DistnCt- Durg (CG) ; 'Vfti'sus .-^e- RESPONDENTS ^^A'^. .."./:: •^' acft W '•ffff'-y 'S-'"^ •^f'y 1. Raniesh Kiij'tiftr @ Ramesh Lal S/o TarafiKan.d Arora, Aged aboui l,29yBars;,:-: •:. • ' .1: . • . 2. Ktshore } Lal,, Q/p TataeKahd Aroi-Ef, ::,;';'S,Sged:^ouf^27,xears;;.,.:,,^:^^-:/;^ :^.A:^gti y^aiffig|:®|^i<W^®'Tat-aehaCTd': :;^,^i^t%ifSII<®I^O^t%3te^^,^...'^ 4. Hita I^^S^p Tal-ac^nii ftrora, Aged about 19 years; 5. Smt, Rajkuniari, D/o Tarachand Arora^Aged about 30 years; 6. Ku. lVleena@ Babbu D/o TaraGharid Ai'ara,(/age<l:al3Quf 19 yea.rs;, ;• ,; . All residents; of Circular Marl<e)/, Camp ,Np.3, Power House, Near Stiitla Mai.WManidir, Bhilai., District- :^urg'(e^.'-.l.":l/'. .::;^^^^^ WRITPETTnoNlJNDEItARa'IGLE^ CONST-N'UTiCIWfflKlNiaA ©IFTHE 1. 2. FBTticylars^of the^'el.itiQiiers: As stated above in the cause title. ,Pa.rticulBu's'oCthe SesDondGQta: As stafed above in tMe cause title. )k 4fc HWrtl^'n^ vjcq *<n<41«q,t?Til<1<l<«,12|ril'Ml^( ri^...^l£^0...^.^:.^^1^200 ^."^STTORl'fi'b craMi'i^sTsp'iiw Jlfe'- aiT^ST qgq? (llclid°IS) WtSR^ifeTan^r 36-9-2008 Shri P. Dhwakar, Sr. Adt fts petitioner. This petitidn has been India questioning the legality, (j 1-2-2000 passed by the Dist| whereby the learned District behalf of the petiUoner uhder photocopy of the receipte on Or<fer6Rule17oirtheC.P.C.f4 1 have heard leamed impugned order. Perusal of the impugnep Ordsr 13 Rute 2 of the C.D filed under Article 227 of the Constitutionof tropriety and correctness of theorder dated ^ict Judge, Durg in civil suit No.23-A/99 J|udge has rejected the applicatjon filed on lOrder 13 Rute2 ofthe C.P.C. Tprtaking ^ecord as ateo the apptication filed under ^amendmentofthe plajnt. 4»unsel for Uie petitjoner and perused the documenfe namely, photocop ^ photocopies were.l/attested copies itseif were fiot produce|3 rightly held that l^n the admissibte ahd why attested c<|>| not exptained in the applicatio^ Inflmiity in the impugned ordei) Rute2of eC.P.C, Theapplication under Cpi by the trial Court on the groun|d contrary to the pleadings in against respondents for evicflon <pi<ifn<II'i*ii*inV'lfls»<9'(Rttsit ^arf^Taii^i ocate with Miss Sunita Jain, Advocate for order shows that vide application under >.C. the petitioner wantsd to produce 3 i|es ofthe munlcipal receipts.and these c4pies of the documenfe. As the attested y before the triat Court, the trial Court has ph|otocopfes of the attested copies were not |)pies were not produced by the petitioner is Therefore, I do not find any illegality or in rejecting the appiication under Order 13 trie 'rder 6 Rule 17 ofthe C.P.C. was rejected that altowing the amendment asked for is ptaint. The petitioner herein filed a suit and arrears of rent on the ground of SP/FS/2005-20,000 XI-HC-78 47 'd^n'^iraioo, u>-a1<a<t<s, Rriwy'i TCT^TWn^ sn^gT (R^ (4cifjd<g) VF^200 sntCTwR-fi'b gsB^asPTN; -AI<- Qarye Ju^t landlord and tenant relationship. wante the necessary para-3-A sb hassbes^Bsissued !n favour of the suit ffled by the petitioner and he retevantand necessary for the the siiit ffied against respondent! and tenant relationship; t do not flnd illegality or in this petition is not maintainable, accordingly dismissed. ConsequenUy, M.(W.)P. stand disposedof. Py the instant amendmentthe petitipner |»wingthat the Patta dated 14-8-97 whteh llefendants hasbeen questioned in a ch/il son, therefore, this amendnisnt was not decision of the case for the reason that herein was on account of the landlord prmity in the impugned order. Therefore, bame is liable to be dismissed and it is 1 ^ ! lNo.3775^2005 and I.A. No.8368/2005 •ni'qfwilifiinV^'fe'-cl^Ril^l'! *aif^T3ii^?r Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge iBisa