-sf^ IN T8E HIGH COU8T OF J®DICATORE Aff BILASPBR (CG) ifRIT PETITION N0» i^ -T~^^- OF 2005 BETW^N Sa&tos]a ©asaged 38 years» S/o R«ta Vilash, by caste saryavansM (Mnda) oeetipation GttltiXiatloa, resident of Village Kaebaada, Tahsil Nawagarh (Janjgir) District tTa&jglr Chaispa (CG)^ PEroTIONER l^ ^-2^ .-3* 4» 5» PI^iWt-ST & N D Slaeetla a@ed 35 yearsl Kaiishal aged 27 years ^ Panni I»al^ aged 25 years &? ^£.'J..^g^— .--"""^S^ L^' ^"^' ^s^^ 6t d-g'"^' Rakesh ^aged 21 years^ Ali Daughter/soiss of I»ate Amrlfe I*al<» Itahl Bai ,aged about 6©years, Wd/o liate AEaEit 3.»al • ^ll by caste Karmi ,£esi<aeat of Mo^a Kachanda»Tahsil Mawagarb fJanjglr) Mstrict Janjgir Champa (CG)o The state of ®hhatt.lsga2;h»ttarougM Collector ^Taiijglr Chae^pa y^adquarter Jaajgir (CG)^ RESPOK)E8TS ^7 WRIT PE'CTTION UMDEB ARTIC2»E»223^ ©PTHE CONSTITUTIGN OF INBIA XI-HC-22 3TT^ToFT fN^W^T $t>^i<=h^Tl?cT 3^'^sn^TRTq', sirfl+i'Ko, (a«'llti^< 311^1^51 ch ^ww $n«iith""' •'''' * ••"'* ^"^ 2QjO^ 3o .- ? ..-.•.:i '.-''N ^:- 3:n^T?^TTW:^rf?c[ 13.04.2005: Shri Awadh Tripathi, learn Shri Parag Kotocha, tearn tde The petitioner has filed Constitution of India as his apt>lication Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. i(i Civil Judge, Class-il, Janjgir 22.01.2005. ift (C|^ The petitioner moved an C.P.C. for amendment in his deed" in piace of t<agreement rejected by the Court below by allowed, the nature of the amendment is not permissible. that a suit for declaration of title on the averment that the defendants to the petitioner \flde laHd How^ver, no registered though the possession of the t^nd time of execution of the abbve plaintiff/petitioner has describe^ However, a bare perusai of the therefore. the learned Civji Judg^ ^^rfcN^T HTTOf ^*fe^ Tf^^K ^3:rf^T3TI^T •d counsel for the petitioner. d P.L. forthe State/respondlent. instant petition under Artide 227 of the for amendment preferred under Civil Suit No. 61-A/2004 before the first 3.) has been rejected vide order dated (appljcation under Order 6 Rule 17 of the ^iaint as he wanted to incorporate "sale to SeIF and this application has been lecording a finding that jfthe application js suit will be changed, therefore, such -eamed counseJ for the petitioner submits |and specific performance was filed by him in question was transferred by the Ideeddated 06.04.1990. slale deod was oxecuted by th^ defendants was delivered to the petitioner at the deed. Eariier in the plaint, the this document as agreement to sell. locument reveals that it is a sale deeci and ought to have allowed the applicatjon for (^^fe^) imr.::;r : ; T XI-HC-22 W^T^T f?;TW3Tr^r 5bHi<=hef?cT .<^" ^^ ^ ^ -< €~ ^ HIH^TT^RT^ 3^T ^j^Krl^, ^Tf1^i<?, I®S<ni<1^< sni^r^Rra? »*••<*•»•»»**»•»•»»»» 5\ ^ 2oor ^re^' amendment and the finding of th( the suit will be changed if the app| } have heard learned coi|i through the pleadings of the rf question. However, fronn perusal application for amendment has b| same has been passed by the 14 excess of the jurisdiction vestedj impugned order the petitioner hs<s requires interference under the of the Constitution by the High Cc} In view of the above, th| same is liable to bo dismissel accordingly dismissed because] adjudged during the trial c^iq^^^ ^i^^iT^*te^'<f^^i< ^3Tf^T3TT^?T 3 TribunaJ is erroneous that the nature of lication for amendment jsatlowed. inset for the petitioner and 1 have gone ispective parties and the documents in <i'.. ' ^ of the impugned order by which the sen rejected, it cannot be termed that the arned CMJ Judge without jurisdictjon or in in it. tt can also not be held that by the b©ensubjected to grave injustice which super/isory jurisdiction under Article 227 urt. i petition is without any merits and the d at the motion stage itself and it is the nature of the document shall be Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge (^y^)