ialg Bonc ^ €ir\ ±. BEFORE THE HON^BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. 5^ Of 2005. PETITIONER PLAINTIFF Shivrmarayan Math Mandir Tmst, Through Sarvarakar aad Managing Tmstee Rajeshshree Mahant Ram Sunder Das, aged about 35 years, Guru Late Shri Rajeshshree Ntahant Vaishnav Das, Shivr- inarayan Math, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VER S U S RESPONDENTS o $ _.....-- cs.b^r^ ^^••-:^"-^"<2;:.^--" ^^<1-."^" ^-f"n< oe / 1. Shri Satyanarayan, son ofMahabir Sultaiua, aged about 50 years, Occup- ation Businessmen, resident of Shivri- narayan, District Janjgir-Champa(C.G.), ^ 2. Additional District Judge, Janjgir, Champa (Chhattisgarh), PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 QF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-78 3TT^T^T^ <T8TT 3TT^?T ^TT^ N WdT Sb*lich 3^ ^^icn^ ^Tn^li<o, fa^ii<M^< co.:c:..^^". n O ^200 3TT^T<ra^ (^c<i^s«^T) 5^TTW ¥rf?cT3TT^T 8.11.2006 Shri H.B. Agrawai, Sr. for the petitioner. Shri Prateek Sharma, c|ounse< for respondent No. 1. The petitioner/plajntiff (•I of the Constitution of India <=bl<M?cn41r1 HTR^ff ^* tel^t <f^<^l< ^3:rf^R'3T^ST ^dvocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel |as filed the instant petition under Artide 227 ^gainst the order of Annexure P/11 dated 11.10.2004 passed by III Add|tional District Judge (FTC), Janjgir whereby the application preferred by th^ petitioner/ptaintiff under Order 6 Rute 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure tor amending the plaint, has been rejected and also the application for rfotice of admitting the documente has been rejected on the ground that th|e same has been filed belatedly wifriout any valid explanation and by the changed. lamendment Ihe nature of the suit would be Learned counsel for th^ petitioner submits that the documerts were not traceable as the same w^re misplaced and therefore, the same could not be filed eariier and the C|ourt below was not justified in rejecting the application on the ground that|the same changes the nature ofthe suit. On the other hand, leafned counsel for the responderrt submits that there was no pleading jn th^ plaint by the plalnttff that there was any agreement between ttie pa |ties with respect to tenancy of the suit XI-HC-78 3n^TcFrRl^i<=h cT8TT3T[^T$b^i4> ^<^ ^" \ *11^^1 «»+1ich 3;5Er'*ll*IICl<4,<?Tfl'y<l<o, (s|<rtl^l^< ••••••• ^* •••'••T*•<(• ••-Jt"l_| ^ £1 £t [-20^ 3TI^5T^^K (l^cli^dt^r) ?^TTW ^f?cT W^T GM^fci<nTi wT^ff^ te^t <r3i<^i< ^3rf^T3TT^T accommodation. The reaso|is assigned for filing the belated application for amendment and produciitig documents, have been disbelieved by the Courtbelow. Even otherwise, the a^nendment was not necesseuy for adjudication of the suit as tfie tenancy of <he accommodation has been admitted by the respondent in his return. I have heard tearned <|ounsel for the parties. Taking into considejratton the amendment proposed by the petitioner in the plaint and further considering the reasons assigned for rejecting the applications of 1|he petitioner, tttis Court is of ttie view that no interference is called for in ^he findings ofthe Court below under Articte 227 of the Constitution of lil force is hereby dismissed. idia. Accordingly, tt>e petition being without Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.