3'^cT "qiq|0<4, ^xn'y^KS, fsf<yl>iy^< *ll*<dl **<|ch ""•"——•—••••"•—• -^ 200 3n^?T'CRW (^ctf^^) ^1^T,5RT RtTlicb sb^lch '^TTW^n 37T^T SIN6LE BQslCH: HON'BLE JUS7|ICE C5HIRENDR4MISHM W.P.M N0.1146/2008 PETITEON Piaintiff RESPONbENTS Defendants Nitesh Kunjiar. S/o U.Vel. Unus, aged about 28 years, Cas^e-Christian, R/o Jodhapur Ward, bhamttri, fahsil & Distt. bhamtari (C.G.) Vs 3. Mahanadd Poturflunl Dhamtoul 4. U.Vel. Christia(i, Tahsil d| Bhilai, D|i Unus 25.2.2008 Mr. D.N. Prajaport-i, Advoca1|e for the petitioner. Heard on admission. The petitioner by this petij of India has impugned the order ^ learned 1st Civil Judge, Class-2, D^iamtari the appticotion of the plaintiff/p|etitioner been rejected. From perusal of the imp| perpetual injunction was filed aga nst the plaint it was further pleaded t\ 3.7.2000. By way of an applictiEfi^n <=M^f<rt<flti 'w^if "^* 'fe^ir <pi-i^i< '^3^FT31^T Sdiu, aged about 40 years, S/o Sahu, R/o Jodhapur Ward, i, Tahsil <& Difftt. bhflnntari (C.G.) i, aqed about 65 years, Caste- i, R/o Jodhapur Ward, bhamtari. bistt. Dhamtari (C.G.) At present istt. Durg (C.6.) hon under Article 227 of the Constitution \f Annexure P-1dated 16.1.2008 passed by liamtari in Civil Suit No.256-A/06 vwhereby for amendment in the plaint has igned order jt appears thot a suit for defendants on 3.2.2005 and in the ^iat the mother of the plaintiff dted on \sn filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC the GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007 — 50,OUO. .^Tse^. ^.^b X ff ".^ ^ XI-HC-78 1 J 3^T ^T f<-l|ch TT^TT ^TT^T ?h^i<=b 3^c[ ^WW^, ^W\<c, (st^iyy @ "Hl^dl *<41*_.M^.£<£..:)t^.^. l^h •^ 200 3TTt?r xra^ (4c<fl^<isy) '^TTS[R'^Rf^T 3TI^T 2- plaintiff has prayed for incorpi effect that defendant No.2 has i sdd sale deed one Madhumati ha^ also put her signoturc and therefore, said Madhumoti should be arroyed fcs defendant No.3. Another relief was sought that the order of m^tart-ion dart-ed 25.8.2002 passed by the Tehsildar. bhamtari be atso set a|side and H- be declared that the plaintiff is the owner of l/12th share of the j^roperty, The above applicort-ion was| observations that cause of actj arise, during the pendency of th^ learned Civil Judge for rejecting) is of the opinion that the court) jurisdictional error in passin^ Consequently, LA. No.l al^ <^i^<n4lti JTW^f ^'fe^l' <r^t^i< ^T ^tRw ^rTT^T >roting cunendments in the ptaint to the legally transferred the suit lcmd and in the rejected by learned Civil Judge with the on for incorporating amendment did not suit, a new party is sought to be added in the plaint, however, there is difflerent provision for adding party in the suit and the amendment shall change fhe noture of the suit. After going through the iijnpugned order and reasons assigned by the the appljcotion for (Bnendment, this Court- below has not committ-ed any illegality or the impugned order which caJls for interference in the exerci^ of ejxtraordinary vurit jurisdiction. In the reajlt, the petitionj has no substance, the same deserves to be dismissed and it Ss hereby dismisjsed at the admission st-age itself. o stands dismissed. Sd/- DV^^l^^a 5uA^