IN THE HIGH COURT OF HJDICATURE AT BILASPUR rC.G.1 Writ Petition No.-^~£--^—/05 PETITIONERS .-• .\ M^ j^wy / (-7,.^ p y' /^o-" •Ssf'.'-7Y ^/f ^A/ '<y Rain S/o Chamaraa 2. Jagat Ram S/o Chamaraa Aged- 55 years 3. Angad S/o Chamaraa, Aged- 60 <St years AI1 are by caste- Panika, occupation - farmer, Resident of Village- Navagaon, Tahsil and District- Raigarh [C.G.] VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^y » / -<•'& •^^..V tf .<<•; 't^^3' !V^vy' f4^' .rt\^l$? ^y ;^ ^^.y ^r?*^^ ! '..i-WI Vs; ^-1. Jaanaki Prasad Patel S/o Dol Narayan Patel, Aged- about 58 years, Occupation- Vakalat and cultivation, Caste- Aghariya, R/o Village- Navrang pur, Tah.& Distt.- Raigarh [C.G.] • 2.Shashi Kumar S/o Jagat Ram Aged-22 years 3. Rameshwar Das S/o Bhagat Ram, Aged- 22 years From 2 to 3 are by caste- Paruka, occupation- farmer, Resident of Vfllage- Nawagaon, Tahsil and District- Raigarh[C.G.] ^4. Paharu Lal S/o Dhodhan Aged- 55 years, occupation- Up sarpanch, and District Raigarh [C.G.] 5.State of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, Raigarh [C.G.] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3T-OH-IX ^yw»»*TW..^,-P,.<^isJ.;..<:' 3(BSsgto|^^pigrt)6 aii^iflsK'fe! SI'aiIaiBiin'ti'n ^•' Mr, Scnjay Po-t&l, counsel.f< Mr.Sandeep D^ibey, 6ovt. i- Heard. j , iy this writ pdtitibn under the petitioners have tjuestioned 1 order dated 23-6-20p5 passed b' Civil5ui+No.l74-A/^003, whep.efc herein for amendmen^ of the. rejected. . | Brief facts iei^Jing to fiiin^ No.l herein filed a ciMI suit, again| No.2 to 4 herein f^r perpetual petitioners herein fited written ?| petitioners herein •f|led an apfl statement and coun-f'er claim. t<i nunibers have been t^jped out as 1 therefore, the petitibners hereir^ allowed to corr'ect th|s mistake. 1 applicotion yidethe irjtpygned ord< have commenced, ev4i the staterj the amendment sougi^ for, ndturei gIWR «(l*tnT<ffe'^!<lBKigP(T^ ;3lRftOT^fCTP<BR^6 •^.-rai* r the jietitioners. dvocate for the State/Cespondent No.5. lAri-icle 227 of the Confetitutionof India, • |he: legality, propriety ajid correctness of the 4 Civil Judge, Cl^ss-ri, Raigarh, in jy the applicdfion filed |>y the petitioners .writfren statement and counter claim has been of this writ petition ar|e that respondent I i |t the petitioneFS hereiji and respondents : 1 •injunction ond posses^ion of which the^ lotefflent and counterclliim. Later on, the llication for amendmenl- in the writl'en;:! the effect that inac|veFfent]y, Khasra? p7 instead of 130, and lf.Om placeof .128,^11 |, who are the defendarjts in fhe suit, hei:l powever, iearned tria! (Jourt rejectgd thel|i;|| .1 '.. ' '. ' 1:'..; .Mil r menttoning therein th^tthe proceedings.||j| ^ent of Pattgjcin has bee|i recorded snd b)i'|;|i |af the suif witl be chongbd. ';^si'"i*ifi)ie)<y|-yA<iw<»Iifi!«i<H<F ^OTBEF^TT^ ' (+- ^—}--> / u*»•••• ••*,•.*•.»«^• •. ••.»».« ^ ••*k< •..»f ••'BWSB-y" / ^ P^fRf 3ii^T9w;tSw<i>i3 ?rai3ii^i<n*ilm f'~<l & a '•'&!'-;" JC^? v^'-f^T-rs^ ;• 'ST'i'.T;''t;^.'~~''?I;;' /^ __^. [yvwc' -•^ Learned counsel for the typographical mistake| incorrect allowing the iristant amendment, documents, the naturSe of suit,is| proceedjngs of the sui|i' will not btz Hoving heard learned couns^ amendment applicatipn as aiso the the order impugned is perverse, amendment to the effect thot' duA has been typed out in |ilace of 130 place of 128, and by fcorrection o( going to be changed, fherefore, amendment appiicatiori. As the am of the opinion thffi^ issuing noti delay the proceedingsj As such,th| directed to ailow thfe Detitionerl However, if responderit No.l is stil at liberty to move this Court- for In view of this jorder, M.(W| stand disposed of. | Part'ies are entit'led for certli ; lifrt'Dl^SjSt*! *li*fdT *t"fe'St^F^R '^^iTy:. ^3it^»ian^pwm1!??!® letitioners submits that on account of l<(hasra numbeiy have befentyped out.' By parties, were not reqiaired to file any not gojng to be changed and aiso that held uo. i •forthe petitioners, having perused the order impugned, I am of the opinion that |as thepetitionersihereinsimpiy sought to typographical mistake Khasra No.127 |and Khasra No.120 has been typed out in this misfake, the natEire of suit is not }ie trial Court ought to have allowed the or^der imp.ugned is prima facie, perverse,I i(;e to respondent No.l is going to furthec petition isallowed andjthetrial Court is 'fe to insert the amendment asked for; aggriewd by this order, then he wiil be mbdificaTion of this orderi. 1)P.No.3448/20)5 andIlA.No.7696/2005 fied copy of this orderl Sdf- L.C. Bhadoo -Judge Sl^S/2005 ^20,000