Petitisner Pfaintif? Respondents Defendant HEGH COURT 5F CHHATTISGARE—i AT BILASP‘LR \Nrit P&tiiien (Art'22’i‘; :‘JG.1807 o§ 2011 Dr.(Smt.) Ratnawaii $ingh, Aged about 7G years (\Mfe of Shri Mahendra Kumar $ingh) Dau’g‘nmr of Barrister Late Shii Chhedi Lam Thakur, Resideni of Thakur Chhedilai Barrister Bungalew. Ward No.28, Hcuse No.61‘ Gandhi Chewk, Dayaiband Baiiaspur (CG) Through ihe Aam Mukhatiyar, Shri Mahendra Kumarji Singh, Aged about Y3 years‘ S/o Late Shii Rang Bahadw Singh}i, Resident of Thakur Chhediia! Barrister‘s Bangioo, Gandhi Chowk, Dayalband Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. Thakur Vijai Praiap Singh aged about 7O years S/o Late Shri Chhediial Barrister Resident of Gemini Chowk, Dayaiband Biiaspur ((16,) 2. Shri Pfit‘nvipai Singh aged about 65 years S10 Late Shri Rameshwar Singh 3. Shri Yogendra Singh (since deceased) Through hisvLRsg- A. $mt.Prema Devi Singh widow of Late Shri Yogendra Singhii B. Renu Rani Singh Daughter of - Late $hri Yogendra Singh C, Saurebh Singh Slo Late Shri Yogendra Singh aged about 26 years Ari aforesaid A,a & C Residents of Gupta Gaii. Tikra Para. Bilaspur. Tan. & Dist. Biiaspur (C.G.} D. Dr.Lokeshwar Singn aged about 3O years‘ Student. S/o Late ‘Shri Yegendra Singh, Psychiatric Hospitai, Kake‘ Ranchi (J‘narkhand) Ashok Kumar Singh' aged about 48 years S/o' indra Bhushan Singh 5. Akhiiesh Kumar Singh aged about 60 years S/o indra Bhuehan Singh Raj Bahadur Sing'n aged about 56 years Slo indra Bhushan Singh 7. Rana Atun Singh aged about 42 years S/o Chitranjan Singh s -Z__ 8. Rama Dines'n Singh aged about ‘30 years S/o Chitranjan Singh 9. Shri Rana Diwaker Singh aged about 34 years S/o Chitranjan Singh Aforesaid AH {respondents 2 and 4 to 9 are all residents of Akaltara. Dist.Janjgeer-Champa (C.GA) 10. Smt.Lakshmi Devi {since deceased having LRs hence her name is deieted from the plaint) 11. Bodhi Singh S/o Lal‘i Singh. resident of Juna Bilaspur (C.G.) 12. shri Veerendra Singh (since deceased) Through his LRs 12 A to E beiow:- 12A.Smt.Ka3yani Singh ($ince deceased) Through her fo!lowing LRs 12BtorE. 12B.Smt.Nalini Singh aged abcut 50 years. daughter of Veerendra Singh 12C.Shri Jayant Kumar Singh aged aboui 55 years S!o Veerendra Singh l2D.Smt.Namita Singh aged about 53 years Daughter of Veerendra Singh 12E.Sanjeeva Kumar Singh aged about 50‘ years S/o Veerenc‘ra $ingh 13. Shri Keshva Kumar Singh aged about 7D years S/o Veerendra Singh Beth aforesaid Respondents No.12 and 13 are the residenzs of Viliage Akaitara, Tah. & Dist.Janjgeer Champa (C.G.) i4. State of Chhat’cisgarh, Through the Coliector Biiaspur (C.G.) (Writ Peiition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia) Mr.L.C.Dash, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Avinash Mishra. counsel for respondents No.2 to 9 and 13. None present for respondent No.1, 11 and 12. Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for respondent Mom/State. g, (SB: Hon’b:e Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) DRDER (ORAL) (27-7-201 1) . By this petition under Articie 227 of the Constitution of india the petitioner has chaiienged the legality and propriety of the order dated 4.2.2011 passed by the 9‘“ Additionai District Judge (F.T.C.), Biiaspur in Civii Suit No.41A/10, whereby 9‘“ Additional District Judge has rejected the appiicaiion med on behaif of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint under Order 5 Ruie 1? of the Code of Civii Procedure. 2. i have heard learned counsel for the partiee, perused the copy of plaini, written statement, ailegerg appiicatlon for amendment and order impugned. 3. By the aileged subsequent amendment the present petitioner has tried to amend the pleading that the petitioner and respondent No.1 Tnakur Vijay J Pratap Singh are sole owner of the property and are in possession. The petitioneripiaintiff has aiso tried to amend reiating to partition and ciaim of such ownership. initiaiiy they are pieading that property is self-acquired property, 4. Considering the ciaim of the petitioner reiating to property ciaimed in her hand received by way of succession from Thakur Cheddiiai Singh, i do not frnd any reievancy for such amendment. The Court beiow has rightly rejected the application fried on behaif of the petitioner. She may lead evidence to estabiish the fact that how the petitioner and respondent No.1 are owner of the property, 5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. interim appiication, if any, stand disposed of. CF} Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge