HIGHCQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(227l No.6296/2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1 •'if \ 6 Shiv Gopal Gupta S/o late kashi Prasad Gupta, aged about 68 years, R/o ward No.18, Civil Court, Near Umair Police Station, Manendragarh, District Sarguja M.P. now(C.G.)rPin- 497442 Versus Smt. ShakuntalaGupta.Wd/o Late Ram Pal Gupta (Substituted by Late Ram Gopal Gupta) Vishnu Shankar Gupta, S/o Late Ram Pal Gupta (Substituted by Late Ram Gopal Gupta) Tulasi Shankar Gupta, S/o Late Ram Pal Gupta (Substituted by Late Ram GQpaLGupta) Nirbhay Shanka^Gypta, S/o Late Ram Pal Gupta (Substjtuted by Late Ram Gopal Gupta) Ram Shankar Gupta, S/o Late Ram Pal Gupta (Substituted by Late Ram Gopal Gupta) All resident of ward No.17, Plot No.356, Near Jain Mandir, Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. Smt. Vidyottama Gupta, W/o Sri Ram Lakhan Gupta, aged about 26 years, R/o Near Hospital, RampUr, Naikin, Distt-Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh State Through: Collector Korea Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE2270F THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA Aopearance: Shri Uttam Pandey, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Parag Kotecha, Counsel for respondents No.1 to 6. Shri S.K. Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondentNo.7. W.P.(227)No.6296/2008 ^ ORAL ORDER (21.10.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. shyna Heard on admission. Being aggrieved with the orderdated 07<12.2007 passed in Civil Suit No.5-A/98 by the Civil Judge, Class-11, Manendragarh, District Koria (C.G.), the petitioner/defendant No.,1 has filed this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment was incorporated in the plaint after expiry of the period granted by the Court and it was incoFporated by a person, who was not the engaged counset for the plaintiffs. Aperusal of the impugned order would show that the learned trial Judge, taking a liberat view in the matter that there was a technicality regarding incoiporation of the aforesaid amendment, permitted it as incorporated and directed the suit to be listed for plaintiffe' evidence. After going through the impugned order passed by the triai Court, 1 do not find any reason for interference in the said part of the order. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed summarily at the motion stage itself. Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge ii'ESsSS: