HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ‘AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No.2989 Of 201!) Petitioner Munnala! Viswakarma, S/o. Late Appiicant Ramchan’dra Viswakarma, ' aged abGut 54 years, R/o. Main Road, Badhaipara, In front of Seema Fancy Store, Raipur, Tahsil and District Ra§pur (C.G.) Versus Vashishta Sharma S/o. Late Ramchandra Viswakarma, aged about 54 years, Rio. Q.T.No.5/776, Badhaipara, Raipur, Tahsi} ‘ and District Raipur (0.6.) (Writ Petition under Articie 227 of the Constitution of India) (SB: Hon’bie ML T.P. Shanna-Jr) Respondent Non-appiicant " IQ€ Present;- MrRupesh Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. MrManoj Paranjape, counsel for the respondent. u ORAL ORDER (Passed on 5‘“ August, 2010) 1. Heard. 2. i have perused the order dated 11.3.2010 (Annexure Pit) passed by the 4‘“ Civil Judge Class-l, Raipur, in Civil MJC No.2/O9, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Ruie 17 of the C.P.C. has been a» dismissed. 3. Leamed couneei for the petitioner submits that after receiving reply filed by the respondent with a view to explain the facts in proper way the present petitioner has filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. for amending his originai petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. ' 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that ' (appiication has been filed after 7 months of filing of original petition, r although the aforesaid grounds were available to the petitioner on the dater of filing of the original petition, therefore, with a View to delay the tnquiry or trial, he has filed this application. rj:ii . ':j/"‘ j?’ i§® ~2 5. As per parties, both the parties have not ied their evidences tiii today in suppcrt af their claim. . Deiiniteiy, the petitioner was under obligation to inciude ail his grounds available to him at the time of filing of the petition, but the petitioner has not included all the grounds and has tried to ineertthe same by amending the petition and tried to explain the ground aiready taken. 7. At this stage, it is diffiouit to hoid that the petition was frivoious and vexatious. The application was maintainabie under Order 6 Ruie 17 in accordance with Section 141 of the C.P.C., but considering the deiay in filing such petition, the Court was required to settle the cause to compensate the opposite party. 8. Consequentiy, the petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner ("7 shail pay Rs 1000l- to the respondent within thirty days from today. The b Court beiow Is directed to conciude the inquiry/that and decide the petrtion as early as possible No order as to costs \ TP Qdl- Sharm. i ‘ F / Judge ’ ‘r