6% HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITINKER-DIWAKER .P. 12273 NO. 2179(2009 1. Jagmohan Uraon, aged about 70 years, son of Late Dukhi Uraon, Occupax’ion- Agiiculturist, Through powa‘ of attorney holder—Jainath L S/o. Jagmohan Urabn Ra‘ilus aged abOut 32 years, ’son of ‘ Madhi .Uraon; Occupation Agriculturist Raghimandan Son of Bandhu Uraon, raged about 55 years, occupatiorl—Agiiélllumst Chhathu, son“ of Bandhu Uraon, aged, about 35 y‘cam, Occupation Agriculmrist A11 are r/o. Vill. Khajuri, Tah. Samm, Distt. Smguja (CG) PETITIONERs Phinw RESPONDENTS 1 . Defendants Guwa, aged about 30 years, son of Gudil Uraon, occupatiOn—agriCultmist, r/o. Vill. Khajuri, Tab. Samari, Distt. Surguja (CG).' State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Collector, Collectorate Sarguja Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (CG) WRIT'PETITIONIJNDER ARTICLE 227 OF TH ' CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Apearance: p Shri A.N‘;Bhakta, counselforlhe petitioners: Shn' Ajay Dwived‘i, Dy; G,A. for the State. RAL ORDER (29.04.2009) W j E O i the cnse of e tie the aer is hear ll. Cn n re wrt petiti o t der da 290 (nexure ) an order date 23.9 (nnexe P hereb te ut elow Ieect applito til by e s er rer 6 Re 7 o he de i Pcede he ppction of e pais un er 1 ul 1 o Cod f vi Pd roceure. I ear csel for h. eitione bi t y ‘ ay dpl Ane P/ 6) the pih' t to rct the Khasra umb to correct th luatin f the sui to add th name of one Sunil and has pray r eclarat iis fvur and alo to correct cn fac specs. roposed nen s s olws : Lned oun te ptrs Sumt tha b w of amenmentapication’ (nexur laints wan core ner, e vao o t, e ed fo dion nh ao s ertai tual at The p amedmt i a flo “() at m E; 10,14 ‘ 18 i 3113! m i Elma ma 13, qa’ f :? W“/3$ “1/2” m () Wwmmemtm ooWWwmw$W%m am qamw E hw/ mim WWM/vmqmm/ manna WW ( wilmwwmmlm w$m 00/ mth—{20w W Wmmm/ / m osgafmwaww)”mml a4$mmmwmmlwm wiatw Wnasma 1497”.wmwwaiat 497 mm ii zdmt “1.W”mam mel— r aamm agtla? Os iii) awi 10 a air wwm mamzm we m: Wm”wmm@ (iv) “'’q§w¢#"m ww $WW§§W / ”“(TW 12761 mssaw‘rir m m wwmmwm (v) tmu 2a wimamr am Hat @ Wth ont th pars, mtt d mlay hallege i the psent i on is t he or ted 01209 An P/ 1 d d 5200 Axu / 2) wy h Cor b has jed the cain as ed th plaintm‘ und Od ul 1 f t Co of Civl rour and t alia th lntiff der Ord 6 Re 4 f the e o Cil mamml (vi)m“awawwfaawtm$mma mamm$mm$mwm Wart?! Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the amendment as sought is merely a typographical mistake. While deciding this application, the Court below has considered all the aspects of the case and in particular, regarding the alleged correction of typographir‘al mistake and the valuation. A categorical nuding has been given by the Court that it is not the case of typographical error and moreover, the valuation of the suit cannot be permitted to be changed atrthe belated stage. " ‘\ Admittedly, the suit is pending since’the year 2001 and earlier also in the year 2002, various amendments were done by the plainh'h‘s, the evidence of both the parties has already been concluded and the case is nxed for final arguments. Even for Fmal arguments, the case has been adjourned again and again.‘ I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone thmugh the documents. I and no illegality in the order ' impugned in rejeyting the amendment application. So far as the rejection of the plaintiffs application under Order 16 Rule 14 of the Code Of Civil Procedure is concerned, by this application, at the time of nnal arguments and that too, almost after eight years of hling of the suit, the plaintih‘s want to examine one retired Patwari as witness. While rejecting this application, the Court below has not committed any illegality; There is no emr apparent on the face of record to interfére'with the reasoned orders passed by the courts below. The petition has no substance and is accordingly dismissed. However, the Court below is directed that the suit itselfwill be decided expeditiously preferably Within a period t ”1‘6 of three months mm the date of receipt of this onier. It would be tha duty of the peh'tioner to submit the oxder of this Court before the trial court so that the matter‘will be decided expeditiously. Registxy is also directed to send one copy of this order to the concerned Court for early disposal of the case. Sd/- : Pritinker Diwaker E \ Judge