'M?''!. ,?i'§^r C )^ '2-^s=^— }o^ !NTHEJI!GILCQURT^>F CHHATTISGARH AT BELASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) Np. (,_ t^J /2006 PETITIONERS DEFENDANTS ~ ^ ^yy ^-^cx ^ .'••".fK».--'' ^"^y / ^ ^ •yy -^ ^•-\<s?y^ l^ ><?" ^ RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFFS ¥^ y^^f. '?.v s ^ Manoj Readymade Stores through : Proprietor Gopiram Agrawal S/o. Kundan Lal Agrawal aged about 60 years R/o. Kotraroad Sattigudi Chowk, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) :2) Gopiram Agrawal, S/o. Kundanlal Agrawal, aged about 60 years Sole Proprietor Manoj Readymade Stores, In front of Townhall, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS :1) Vivek Agrawal, S/o. Parmanand Agrawal, aged about 28 years, R/o. Subhash Chowk, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) , :2) Ashish Agrawal, S/o. Parmanand Agrawal, aged about 22 years, R/o. Subhash Chowk, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) / : 3) Parmanand Agrawal, S/o. Late Biharilal Agrawal, Occupaation Business, R/o. Subhash Chowk, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) XI-HC-78 tITWTI Sft^rai 3^'siPTTriq', atTlu'ltf, Rlclioy ^q^^KW.t.»..../...-S.....^..^q- ^QQ 311^1 Mach (yiIjaii^sT) 3n^T?)Tf?qR? (raT3)i^rg>irR? .^ ¥- CTarwgfeTsn^r 10.1.2007: Hamida Siddiqui learned coun^ By this petition the petitioner his application flled under Order 14 been rejected. Learned counsel for the for amending his written statement statement stands amended. Howevef basis of amencfed v/rjtten statement I have heard counsel for th4 before me. The suit is based on the g| Chhattisgarh Acoommodation Contro) prove that he is the owner of the sui[ bona fide need. It is not disputed below to the effect that whether there plaintiff and the defendant or not. In view of above this Court is or jurisdictional error in the order Court in exereise of the jurisdiction unt Thus the petition being dismissed. In view of this order IVIWP No. th* +i'!iF<-i4)-f mRiftfte^l <R|WK ^ari^pTsn^r i^el for the petitioner. l-(as impugned the order of Annexure P-1 whereby Rjjle 5 of the CPC for framing additional jssue has petiti((ner submits that the appiicationof the petitioner |has been aflowed and accordjngly the written the trial Court did not frame the issue on the w/|th respect to the ownership ofthe property. petitioner and perused the maten'al available •ound enumerated in section 12 (1)(e) of the Act where the plaintiff is required to plead and property for obtaining decree on the ground of there is already an issue framed by the Court s relationship of landlord and tenant between the (tfthe oonsidered opinion that there is no illegality ?t impjjgned whioh warrants any interference from this itler Article 227 of the Constitution of India. subst^nce-less is liable to dismissed and it is hereby 14550/2006 for interim relief stands disposed of. ^L_A61__- Sd/- Dhirendra Mishara Judge P.T.O.