Defendants ^ 1 1 Respondent fendant ^^ tS7>1^ TN THE MIGH COURT OF CHWAlTISGARHA AT BILASPUR ..i ^ w.RNo. of ^t aeee-oT- !a!?^r.^? ^Baisakhoo aged55 years S/o Raindas Panika, Cultivator R/o Padaniya, Tah. Katghora, Distt-Korba (Chhattisgarha) | Versus SIE 801C Rohitdasaged Cultivator, R/o 165 years S/o Premdas Panika, Padaniya, Tah. i Katghora, District-Korba(C.G.) i ^//'l /r^2. Butudas aged 00 years S/o Premdas Panika , ^ Cultivaton R/oJPadaniya, Tah j Ka^ District-Korba (C.G.) j ManharanDas|aged46yearsS/oRohitbasPanika Cyltivator, R/o Padaniysi, T^ih. Katghora, District-Korba(C.Q.) [ | ^ Sawandas aged 40 years S/o Raindas Panika, Cultivator, R/QSPadaniya, Tahj Ka1|ghora, District-Korba(aG.) 1 Cultivator, R/OiPadaniyaTah.j-Keitghora, District-Korba (C.G.) 5.^ State of Chhattisgarha Through the Gollector Korba, j Tahand District Korba(C.G.) WRlTPETITIONUNDERARTICLE-S8e/l27©FTHE CONSTITUTlbNOFINDIA j K 3H^T'ept'R^N? WT 3TT^T sF1RNr 'T f *11«1CTI W*<1<1» '3^r ^TPTI^PT, ^'al<H^<o, [®i^i^^< . 9^<TC^ ^ / "Wl 2009 ^TI^?I 'XT^F (1?^q<i?) ^HW^ft'cT 3i1T^T OM<<f<!1<flv1 TTIWJf ^f 'feISt <Fa|^K ^ ^fRm SII^T fc SB : HON'BLE SHM J^STICE DHIRENDIIA MISHRA W.P. (c Petitioa U/A 227 Prititionef Plaiatiff Versus Respoixdeats Defeadaiits 1. Resposident Piaiatiff Ressoadeat Plaintiff N0. 51/2007 of Coaastitutioa of Isidia Baisakhoo aged 55 years, S/o Raiadas Paiiika, Cultivator, Kfo Paiidaniya, Tah, Katghoi^, Distt. Korba (Chhattisgarh) Rohitdas aged 65 years, S/o Prenidas Paiiilca, Cultivator, R/o Padaiiiya, Tali, Katghora, Distdct- Korba (CG) Butudas aged 60 years, S/o Preradas Paaika, Cultiyator, R/o Padaiiiya, Tah. Katghora, Distdct" Korba (CG) Manharan Das aged 46 years, S/o Rohit Das Paaika, Cultivator, R/o Padaiiiya, 'l'aii. Katghora, District- Korba (CG) -^_- Sawaiidas aged 40 years, S/o Ramdas^ Pauika, Cultivator, R/o Padaiiiya, Tah. Katghora, District- Korba(CG) Cultivator, R/o Padaiiiya, Tali. Katghora, District-Korba (CG) State of Chhattisgarh Tliroiigh thc Collcctor, Korba Tali and Distiict Korba (CG) ^Wfi7T ^T g^Jn^T, <M'li<Jttc< —FS/197—3/2008 —40,000. '-77' XI-HG—78 ^TI^T ^? f<-ijcb TT8H ^TT^T 5h^ich .^ ^- li ^ •p TST r^l<41(yl<4, ytl1-(H<I(o, f®l<ni'!-l^< / <l^J-^yc-<—^> ^/ *iWW ^^icft^^^^^^^"^^^-""""^^"""^ ^ 200 ^ W^T T^r^' (lioi?^<^r) ^nW?rf^T3T?^T 16.4.2008 Shri A.K. Agrawal, couus( Shri SushU Dubcy, GA foi The petitioner by Uie ii^ order of Annexure P/7 passed Katghora in Civil Suit No.I2-| aaiendment ofthe petitiouer/plij Learaed counsel for appUcation for aiaendment ha^ Court with an. observatiou fhb.t preferre.d after a lapse of four y^ as to how the aaieiidio.ent bec^ by the proposed aoiendment m He further submits fliat. the si have uot comBienced theu' evi^ trial Court has not assigned proposed aaiendnient uatare tiiat lengthy amendment in tii^ for rejectuig the appUcation for | The respondents havej How.ever, wheu the Biatter wasj the respoudents 1 to 4. <=b^?<rf^1l 'RT^ff ^* ftxs)' <f^^« ^ ^iRm 3T?isr fl. for the petitioner. fhc Statc/rcspondcnt No.5. |staiit petition has iuipugned the by leamed Civil Judge, Class-II, f^/02 whereby fhe appUcation for ^intiff has been rejected. le petitioner submits that tiie been rejected by the leamed trial the said appUcation has been ]ars; the plaiatiffhas not nientioned ^aie necessaiy all of a sudden aad ^.ture of the suit would be chaaged, it is at flie iaitial stage as parties lence tilt passiag of the order; the aiiy reason to hold that by tlie >f the suit would be chaiiged and plaiiit itself would not be a reason maeudnient. been served aad represented, lalled, none appeared 011 behalf of IG—78 75T r^i'4i<n^, ^iil-M^Ko, f®tdl-y^< ^^'c^^ r-/ W^f^^W^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ ^?T T[^F (lic<?'l^<^T) STT^T^T'f^T^F TTSn W^T s^^icf) 1 ^^d^SA. ^^J63ti3®aHS '^^RT?f^r 3?T^r — 3,^ Takuig uito consideratioi^ by leanied trial Court for rejec^ have not been properly e.1abo3 impuguecl order of Annexure Pj directed to decide the applic|ition amendment afresh after aiford^ng parties, in. accordaiice with law| by ^Prf^fh? TTR^f ^ fs^l 'tf^^}< ^3tRP:T3?T^T the fact fh.at fhe reasoiis assigiied tiag the application for aBiendnient ated, fhe petition is allowed, The r7 is set aside aiid tlie trial Court is of the petitioiier/plaio-tiff for aii opportunity of hearing to the by a speakiiig order. DhirendraMisbia Judge Ti^spi»w l;:irl""!:!:i I?1^._.J •:..^^_3^ .!..- lfc&.