y f^. ^ss' ^ IN THE fflGH COUKF OF J'UDIGAIURE ,CHHATTISGARH AF BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P. No. ...<-4^^^.0..../2005 . Peritioner :-^SurendTaKiunarBenetagedaJ3Qute 68 year Late AdgarBehe^iyo^T^akhatpurDist.Bilaspur^G'.G.) ,-2.(a)Smt. Savitri Benef aged aboirte 68 years W/oLateShriW..T.Benet ^-(b) Mukul Sondee'p agedaboute 40years •(c) NamrataB'enet^.ged'aboute 38 years • (d)'^^nu^imBBng{%^%8ute36yeaFsfr0mfba^ S/oand.ei^jffim;&Shri;W.J.Beiiet|R/oTaiaiat^ chiritiati P.S. &. "Eah.Takhatpyr Dist Bilaspur (C.G.) ^3. VilitifBenefagedS4''i?ears ^4. AdvinBeHefcage||;gtyears:^' ^5.Ku.iPrarru®%SneKage^ab©t]]t60years ', : ' ^. BCy,!PratfflEanf»!®8KgtffigeCl^8'.aboute ", : 7.'VihmeH{;BgH|E':ag|i|%?Sreiars; ',;':: '. • ' j , •1'! .^:' ^ '&.'K&ESS^'^y^^^^^^ysiSK. ., .;'':i:, ': . : '^ ..Y':;:I:!' 9. Piffiiipaj§a|i|a|g^B|j^|ttl||i^eaTS"SrNo.3 t0|9iAll:^ ^l'i.k |Eaite!E;®eiii||Sl[It||si8eHtFt)I:takhatpurTaK.Takllia^ur S/o, Dist.Bilaspur-((3.©:;)[ V/s Respondent :<|(1) State Q£C|M|ati:tsgarh|Mrdugh:.C ' |[^ '|(2) Sfee^SKa|g|^iage3^ch;ttS5'years S/o?HaztsHe| ^siddikR/o;@lau|ittiM%geliTah.Mungeli ; ' : | •^Dist.Bilaspur^G';) :, . . . |~; "-'l f '^•^Q'w '.^a^^ l^uv- EetitiQnagamstQrdeFoftheffli'yilJi|iIge •Hclaiss -^iMungelriDist. ;Bilajspur;3[C|.p;.) |^hrimati':Kiras;Dwivadj),|date;d|l2^Q't- .r!2B(}5;; Jci¥il^suti;^0^8-^9 ^: 1|^ i^'@^i©^®^] Ra!^®aiii l@®^:W.^ 'y!:^;l ^ir-H'i^^h ^Offi XI-HC-78 WHMWW ';h?t)-ywieWt;w»lwis,Rirti'My*! '^ p vi^at>|o^-~ 3II^?IWR-1 <raT3Il^ST**fl<l)' ^ 4 31T^9T'? R (l3tlfg61'3)' IZ.S.iSUUO ShriAriup Kiliaar Shar Shri R,R. Sinha, Panel The petitionei-s have pn 227 offhe Constitiition oflni and correctness of the order c Judge Class-I, MiuigeU ha petitioners herein ffled uiide sununorung ffae recoid aiid al Riile 17 of fhe CPC for amend Brief facts leading to petitioners hereia filed a civfl respect of ttie land luentiouei ground that fh.e disputed lan petitioners on 30.3.1951 was Malguzar of^ViBage Dau question. After, fhe purchs received by fhe father of ]^ rem.ained ia possession q, petitioners tlieiuselves upto residing ozitside 'fhe viUage, rights by other petitioners te No.3 consta-ucted a house on is stiU existtag arid saine was ineDibers .of the petitiouers. were residing at other places| the laiid & house, taktng a| dbn ffe' 4'14fo4|') 11Hdl'^"ls'c) xRi'(ci'( ^!3lRl43II^9T ::i '"'; tna, coiuisel foi tlie petitioner. -.awyer forti.Tp State. iferred tliis writ petition under Article lia questioning fhe legality, propriety lated 12.4.2005 whereby leamed Civil s rejected Uie application of the r Order 13 Rule 10 of tlie CPC for so fhe application, filed uader Order 6 ment of the plaiut. ling of fhis writ petition ai~e that the suit for declaration and possessiou m 1 in Paragraph 1 of the plauit on the 1 was purchased by the fafher of the one Jagaiiiiath Prasad Venna, who .para and was fhe oivuer of laad iil .se of said laiid fhe possession was etitioners aiid tliereafter, said laad the petitioners' father aiid the 45 years. As tlie petitiouers were therefore, petitioner ;No. 1 was giyen look after fhe said laad. Petitioner Uie said land in the year 1958, which. occupied froin tiraetfo tuae by famfly As the petitioners' fauuly nieiHbers and thev were not able to look after Ivaatage of that sitAation, uuder a XI-HC-78 ^•Bc|T^|^)eii^,»'tT|<ti<is,fini'My'; *il*icyi^ITT^ ^9T^ra% (<|q^<si<g) an^CTwR-fi*' aan3II^?Td>*<i* sraTW^ifeTsfi^v -2-- <h|4[d4lTl *11*fdTtt"(s'K9>(l"l't^l't ^3lf^T3II^?T ;' ; •<. a±td thdii conspiracy the defendaiit No.^, laiid declared as Nazul laad 30.12.1988 and trespassed ovt After issuance of sumi their written stateinents, issi pleadings of tfae parties and hei-ein adduced and closed The above silit was fiji framed on 14.9.2002, -the ^ 18.11.2004 aad now the defendants. ; • I have heard leamed Leamed couusel for thi| • suitwas filed before fhe am( ia the year 2002 , therefore, not apply aild by- way of fh^ wanted to prove fhat defendant adinitted that fhe laiid ui que; tb.at is why he approached the| The petitioners' father had disputed land. : Leamed tnal Court rej^ fhat suit is pending since closed fheir evidence aad t>v fhe nature of suit wiU -be caanot be permiitted. As far as| 1/respoiident No.2 herein got fhe said also got it entered .iu his naiae on br it. un^ions, tlie respondents hereia filed |ips were framed arisuig out of the Ittiereafter, fhe plamtiffs/petitioners evideuce. :d in fhe year 1999, issues were ititioners clospd fheir evidence on mlatter is fixed for evidence of tlie < coi|jisel for fhe petitioners. petitioners submitted tliat as fhe leni&ment in.Order 6 Rule 17 ofthe CPC the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 does amendnient the pefitioaers hereia ]|t No.2 Uimselfonce iipon a tiiae had ^tion belonged to fhe petitioiiers aad Ipetitioners for purchase ofthe land. ^xecuted a Will in, respect of the jcted the application ;on the ground |999, thereafter tlie .plamtiffs have. |fhe .instaat amendment application clianged, fherefore, ftie atnendinent [tiie applicatibn filed under Orier 13 XI-HC-78 y |wyiyirt^,t»Tn'<i<i<?,l6trti'<-fy'< HWW^RW 31T^?TlIW (l^f^<s|«d) W^200 siT^CTwR'ii*" ;)'aiT3lrt?Tri)t<i* Rci?.vvai^ concdnied imtw fliereoflcoidd Rule 10 of ftlc CPC is file copies of record for which) Haviiig heard leamed coiisidered the facts and ciit optnion tiiat fhe order of fh.e The trial Court has righflv II petitioners wanted to ^t si CPC, a certified copy has not been dQiie, therefor^ As far as fhe aineiidnient is| closins their evid&nce wanN have been luentioued iii the petitioners liave not bruig tliese facts on record In view offhe above, I have not been able to brui! jurisdiction luider Ai-ticle ^' iaterfering wifh the impiigB|( liable to be dismissed aiid it 1; luentiofaed edtrlier. cpi<tfca41i ^r*^T^'f^t-^'<^1tiiR i&3lf^T3TI^?T ; [, fhe pedtioBers were entifled to thev were askuig for siiininoniag. j'ouasel for the petitioners aiid havius ;unistances of tlie case, I ana of the ttrial Court js not without jurisdiction. yeld that the pubUc record which fhe lon^l under Order 13 Riile 10 oftte liave been ffled, bv tliem but it j, tfae application is iiot iiiamtainable. concemed, now fhe petitioners after td to iasert fevo new: grounds whieh appUcation but ia tlie application fhe that how thev wer& not able to |am of fhe opinion faat tlie petitiou.ei-s |oiit a case for invo-knig extraordiuar}r 127 of the Constitution of India bv |ed onier. Therefore, the petition is s accordiaglv disinissed. , L.C. Bhadoo -.iudge