. -1^ i ~^! '.'f^ c .-t-^ W.P. PETITIONERS/ PLAINTIFFS .O/N'. ^S!1" ^&^ ^' \r--^\9'' ^ ry^QO M<y .^'6y •^- ^' 2. ^ 3. 4. IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^C.G.} (2271 N0. 1^^- ^2010S.B. : 1. Jagannath S/o Late Tilakram Yadu, aged about 50 years, Budhdeshwar @ Budhesh Kumar Yadu, aged about 45 years Through -Special Attorney Jagannath S/o Late Tilakram Yadu, aged about 50 years, Kailashbati Wd/o Late Tilakram Yadu, aged about 70 years, Gangadhar S/o Late Tilakram Yadu, aged about 40 years, All are farmers and resident of Village Sorali, Patwari Halka No. 11, Rajasva Nirikshan Mandal- Kheratha, Tahsil- Dondilohara, Distt. Durg (C.G.). (Since the plaintiff no.2 namely Tilakram S/o Nandram in Civil Suit No. 2A/09 has already died, he has not been impleaded as party.) VERSUS : ^ 1. Jagdishram S/o Late Tilakram Yadu, Sudhakar Ram S/o RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS 2. ^-v\ ^ ^ 3. 4. / y" 8. 9. "s Jagdishram Yadu, Vijaykumar S/o Jagdishram Yadu, Prabhakar S/o Jagdishram Yadu, All are farmers and resident of Village Sorali, Patwari Halka No. 11, Rajasva Nirikshan Mandal- Kheratha, Tahsil- Dondilohara, Distt. Durg (C.G.). Government of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Through- The Collector, Durg Distt.- Durg (C.G.). Faguwaram S/o Narayan Sonkar, aged about 50 years, R/o village Achholi, Tahsil- Dondilohara, Distt. Durg (C.G.). Surajbai W/o Kartikram aged about 50 years, R/o village Achholi, Tahsil- Dondilohara, Distt.-Durg (C.G.). Smt. Jeevan Bai W/o Shri Durgesh Kumar Yadu, aged about- 60 years R/o village- Akalatara, Tahsil- Bhatapara, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.). Smt. Prasuti Yadu W/o Shri Ramkumar Yadu, aged about- 55 years, R/o village- lKSS»~?W?'ffl: ® Mathal Khapari, Tahsil- Dongargarh, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 11'•.^^1 •'•^y ~ '"^' Y? 65-r ; 1.5- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT PETnriONERS PLAJNTSFFS Jagannath .and others. Vefsi^ Jagdlshram and others. Shri Rlshs Rahut So.ni and Shri Jitenctra Gs-spta, counsel .for the petdjoners. WRIT PETITiON UNDERARTICl^ 227 OF THE OF ORALORDER (15.03.2018) The petitioners' appllcatlon vnder Order 14 5 of C.P.C. for addltionai has rejected by the tria! Court. Annexure P/4 Is the tramed by the tria! Court tor adjudlcation of the suit. It appears that the trial Covrt for the tirst on 08-01-1999 and on 09-08-1999, 09-05-2W3 and 28-10-2039. CouEiset for the that the are necessary for ©fthe (2) On. of the document appended the writ thls Court is that the already framed by $.he Court cover the proposed Issues. !t is trite law that for fad m the plalnt and In the wrltten statement an not be framed. To frame an Issue It Is to be the is the bone of contention the parties and If Is not not be of the suit. • tn the the sy'rt can be effectiveiy on the I'bf by the trlal Court. '(.^. o ^— (3) This Court iwst firtd any error commltted by the trlaS C'ourt In rejectir^ the pet'rtioners' prayer tor tramiRg adct.ltional Issues. (4)- The under Arttete 227 Is dismtesed. Sd/- prashantKumarMishra Judge l<- ^^ ^