PETITIONER/: (Plaintiff) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 227) N^.3917 QL2011 Smt. Kapoor Bai W/o Shri Vidvan Prasad Verma, aged about 65 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Madanpur, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.). RESPONDENTS/: (Defendants) 2. Versus Mangat Ram S/o Late Ganpat Ram Agrawal, aged about 70 years, Occupation Business, R/o Kharsiya, Station Road, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) {Writ petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. Single Bench: Honlble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (21-7-2011.) 1. By this writ petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 5-5-2011 passed by the Civil Judge Class-11, Kharsiya dismissing the application for amendment filed on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner in case of suit for specific performance of contract filed on behalf of the petitioner herein. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, copy of the plaint, copy of the written statement and copy of the alleged amendment application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the facts were within the knowledge of the petitioner/plaintiff at the time of filing the suit and they were again brought to the notice of the petitioner herein by filing written statement by respondent No.1 herein in the year 2009, but at the time of preparation of case for evidence, the petitioner has filed application for amendment with pteading. 4. Virtually, the aforesaid pleading was within the knowledge of the petitioner herein at the time of filing the plaint and at the time filing written statement. The pleading is only related to the fact that as to when the cause of action for filing the suit^rose i.e. on 23-1-2008. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded in 13Hh n'^B^ Tal K^E ^TiS^!i &^ariiBifldUUUi MK^^ Soma para 11 of his plaint that the cause of action arose on 17-4-2007. The plaint was filed on 8-2-2008. This shows that the first date when the cause of action arose has been pleaded in the plaint. In these circumstances, by dismissing the application for amendment filed at the stage of evidence, the Court below has not committed any illegality requiring interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. Sd;- T.p. Sbarina Judge §;3f'iiaasB