•^, 1 ^usSC^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER (Plaintiff) RESPONDENTS (Defendants) WRITPETITIQN t227t N0. 4043/2011 Baldu Ram Sahu, S/o Late Bakhariya Sahu, Aged about 79 Years, R/o Jodhapur Ward, Dhamtari, TahsU aad District Dhamtari (C.G.). VERSUS l.(A) (B) 2. SoTnin Bai W/o Late Gandhi Ram Sahu, Aged about 58 Years, Khamlian Lal S/o Late Gaadhi Ram. Sahu, Aged about 37 Years Both are R/o Jodhapiir Ward, Dhamtari, TahsU and Distnct Dhamtan (C.G,). Yogesh Chandra Siagh Thakur S/o Veereudra Siagh Thakur, Aged about 44 Years, R/o Risaai Para Ward, Dhamtari, Talisil aud Distnct Dhaiutari (C.G.). State of Chhatdsgarh, Through The CoUector, Dhaxatari, CoUector Office, Dhamtari, Tahsil & Dist. Dhamatari (C.G.). WKIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sumit Jhanwar & Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 3. Respondents No. 1 (A) (B) & 2 not noticed. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 27/07/2011) Heard on I.A. No. 02 appUcation for exemption from filing typed copy. On due consideration I.A. No. 02 is aUowed. Petitioner is exerapted froin filing typed copy. By this petition. under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has chaBenged the legaUty aad propriety of ttie order dated 6/7/2011 passed by Additional Distiict Judge, Dhamtari, District Dhaiutari (C.G.) ia civil suit No. 16- A/11 whereby Court below has disnussed application for aniendinent of plaint filed on behalfofthe petitioner. Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate for fhe petitioner aad Mr. Suinit Jhanwar & Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, P.L. for ftie State/respondent No. 3 are heard. £—- 4. Learued counsel for the petitioner submits that earUer respondent No. 2 has filed aniendinent appUcation ia written stateinent speciatly relatiug to facts rclated to deceased defendaat Gandhi Ram which has been allowed by the Coiirt below vide order dated 30/7/2010 inconsequent to such new pleading wifh a view to rebut the same ia plauit present petitioner/plainttff has filed amendiiient appUcation. which is consequential ia nature but Court below has disnussed the aforesaid application. 5. AppMcation filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and filed on behalf of the |titioner aud t>ofh fhe orders impugned perused. Bofh the appUcations reveal that soine Para relating to antendiaent in plaint ffled on behalf of the petitioner appears to be consequential iu nature aad after allowing the amendinent appUcation filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 it was necessaiy to rebut the same to fhe plaintiff but Court below has not considered fhe aforesaid facts. In these circumstances observing procedural law aud notice to respondents No. 1 (A) (B) & 2 would only be a futile exercise. Consequen.Uy, order impugaed relating to dismissal of application ofaDiendment filed on behatf of the petitioner is hereby quashed to the extent iadicated. The Court below shaU. cousider the appUcation afresh and to pass appropriate order in the light of necessity ofamendinent after auiendment ofwritten stateiuent to &ie extent of consequential ia nature. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Court below for further hearing on 11/8/2011. No oi-der as to costs. AU uitermi appUcations are dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma judge .<7-