-;'i.. '.t ^il ^,\\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONBR (Plaintiff) RESPONDENTS (Defendants) WRIT PETITION 1227} NO. 4044/2011 Baldu Ram Sahu, S/o Late Bakhariya Sahu, Aged about 79 Years, R/o Jodhapur Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.). VERSUS l.(A) (B) Somin Bai W/o Late Gandhi Ram Sahu, Aged about 58 Years. Khamhan Lal S/o Late Gandhi Ram Sahu, Aged about 37 Years Both are R/o Jodhapur Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.). Heera Panjwani S/o Gopimal Panjwani, Aged about 40 years, R/o Risaai Para Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.). Prakashchand Chimnani S/o Chinkamal, Aged about 37 years, R/o Aamapara Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through. The Collector, Dhamtari, Collector Office, Dhamtari Tahsil 8s Dist. Dhamatari (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon'bIe Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sumit Jhanwar 8s, Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 4. Respondents No. 1 (A) (B), 2 & 3 not noticed. 4. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 27/07/2011) Heard on I.A. No. 02 application for exemption from filing typed copy. On due consideration, I.A. No. 02 is allowed. Petitioner is exempted from filing typed copy. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has. challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 6/7/2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in civil suit No. 15-A/ll whereby Court below has dismissed application for amendment of plaint filed on behalf of the petitioner. •2- ^) 3. Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sumit Jhanwar 8s Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 4 are heard. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier respondents No. 2 8s 3 have filed amendment application in written statement specially relating to facts related to deceased defendant Gandhi Ram which has been allowed by the Court below vide order dated 30/7/2010 inconsequent to such new pleading with a view to rebut the same in plaint present petitioner/plaintiff has filed amendment application which is consequential in nature but Court below has dismissed the aforesaid application. 5. Application filed on behalf of the respondents No. 2 & 3 and filed on behalfofthe petitioner and both the orders impugned perused. 6. Both the applications reveal that some Para relating to amendment in plaint filed on behalf of the petitioner appears to be consequential in nature and after allowing the amendment application filed on behalf of the respondents No. 2 & 3, it was necessary to rebut the same to the plaintiff but Court below has not considered the aforesaid facts. In these circumstances observing procedural law and notice to respondents No. 1 (A) (B), 2 8s 3 would only be a futile exercise. Consequently, order impugned relating to dismissal of application of amendment filed on behalf of the petitioner is hereby quashed to the extent indicated. The Court below shall consider the application afresh and to pass appropriate order in the light of necessity of amendment after amendment of written statement to the extent of consequential in ^nature. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Court below for further hearing on 11/8/2011. No order as to costs. All interim applications are dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^