.(& IN/ S mGH COURT OFJUDICATVR^AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P. No. -7.64A..;/2006 PETITIONER DEFENDENT r" ^il^- .^y^ ^y '-^ Maniram Tamrakar S/o Lokman Prasad Tamrakar Sarkanda, Tahsil and District- BUaspur (C.G.) -•••'/ ..•• ' . ^'&^<c10^" ^ Aged bout 45 years R/i :•••'.^.••"f .••"' aai-1/anyla Vahoil anrl r>io+n'< REPQNDENTS PLAINTIFFS VERSUS 1, Kunjbihari, S/o Late Dhanush- ram aged aboutSS years. -2 Rasbihari S/Iate Danhushrani Aged about 31 years. 3. Brijbibari S/pLate Dhanushram Skged about 28 years 4. Vipinbihari S/oLate Dhanush- ram aged about 24 years. ^-S. SmtKuntibai, widow of Late Shri. Danushrani Aged about 59 years -6. Smt. Keerti HU Widow of Mohan Aged about 33 years A1I 1 to 6 Reside&ts of Gram Birha Distriet Bilaspur. (C.G) WRIT PETITION UN&BR ARTICLE 227 OF THE ,CONSITUTION OPINDIA XI-HC-78 *<1*ICTI aiHfctl 3^?.-<ii<ii<'i<<, ®T(I<I'I<C,Riciiuy j^. .U-.P... C^L. .^^'./^- 200£ 311^14d* (l^g^ar) sn^rciirf^ra; cl2ITaTR5Tsht<iqi 1- gTtiRRHfeTsn^r 17.01.2007 Shri Ashok Kuinar Shukls), Heard. The petitioner has filed Constitution of India agaiast tht P/7 dated 10th ofMarch 1997 w^ plaintiff against flie counter cla|i that fhe saine has been prefen^i has closed his evidence. Leamed counsel for the impiigned is contraiy to law as claim. only after the plauitiifwas| to incorporate the Telief of damages as fhe oriainA possession and damages. I bave heard counsel for I have perused the iinpuj aBuaexed with fhe petition. The on 02/08/83. From the pemsaj] the plaiatiff has pleaded that b.\ tbrough registered sale deed in possessiou and thus tbe plauitif( fbe suit land at the tiine of filias counsel for the petitioner. fhjis petition luider Article 227 of impugned order of Aruaexure- '•liereby the objection of the •laiin allowed and on the grouiid •d belatedly after the plamtiff p^titiom the relief of declal-ation <t>i<ifa<fl-< *<iic'iT^tet^)'<.Ri+<;i< ^siRpTsn^r stitioner subuiits that fhe order defendaat prefencd counter permitted to amend his plaint of title ia addition to the il suit was onlv for recoverv of f4e petitioner. ined order and fhe documents ^uit was filed by the petitioner of the plaint it is evident that had purcbased fhe suit laud t(ie year 1965 aud had obtained tiy has clauned the ownership of Ifhe instaut suit. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3n^TqiTf?:IW OTT 3TI^I »Kich ^A^ '^ HI*1WI Sh*1|ift a^^rptRpT, ®T(I«'I<»,Ricii^y ..U.I?....'7^iJ.. / ^ 200<S 3TI^?T <ra^ (^qi^atc^sr) ^ITW flfer sn^r .•2-- The defendaat has fUed 1983 however he did not s Court aad thereafter fhe 'bi'iitcf'ifl-f t)it<<'il'ir'te<^<f«i't<ii<. ^ srt^iT anSST his written stateinent iu the year :t up auy counter clami. In his wntteiistateinent iaitiaUy fh^ suitwas disnussed. The plauitiff preferred appeal and the laat^er was reiuauded back to fhe trial plauitiff arueiided bis suit to llarati incorporate the relief of decl]aration of tiUe in the year 1995. The defendant has set up the fbe first time on 17.02.97 evidence aad the uiatter w^s already fixed for recording of defendants' evidence. In view of the above facts opinion that cause of action y aay available to fhe petitioner at fbe tiiae of fiUng is written s has not c&inniitted aay iUega^ity in passiug the unpugned order which caUs for interference. devoid ofsubstaace is disiaisl lcouater claiia of Annexure P-5 for ^fter the plaintiff has closed his tfais Court is of the considered itatenient. Thus, the Court below In fhe result fhe petition beiag sed at Gie admission staee. Sdi- Dhu-endra Mishra Judge P.T.O.