J?'1^., ^'^&S^^-i' ;••-" ^.. ®i311sLA" R {•"^•S- " C..': ./^-- ••^.. \a IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (z-2.7) No.^^6 /2010 PETIT10NER S£^ieAlA^M-TA ^ ^Mf ^7^{^\^ <y./ '^y k&sfie^^ie-Ktzs PtAlMTfPF 4^ [^ 1. Ram Prasad s/o Bhaiyalal aged about 72 years 2. Radheshyam s/o Ram Prasad aged about 45 years 3. Ashok Kumar s/o Ram Prasad aged about 40 years 4. Lakhan Lal s/o Ram Prasad aged about 35 years 5. Om Prakash s/o Ram Prasad aged about 30 years w/o Bablu Petitioner no 1 to 5 all residents of Village Lohari Tahsil Marvahi District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6. Smt Sushila d/o Ram Prasad aged about years r/o Village Bacharwar Tahsil Pendra Road District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh VERSUS 1. Mohan Lal Ram Prasad aged about 50 years 2. Ghanshyam Ram Prasad aged about 40 years fcalti ft./s Vr;/.' toAff^/ -r^.wflo'i^' KM.^-' &i]ws,pw^<i^^) \v s fc&.^'e^A.feAjT i^- /^3. State of Chhattisgarh - Through — The District Collector, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA wl !:s^ li!/-li-!1 Ram Prasad and others. DEFENDANTS Mottan Lal Ram Prasad.andofhers. CQNSTITIUTiOrOKiNDIA {SinaleBench: Mon'bleMr.RrashantKytnaFTOishfa.jJ.l Shri A^/.SrwvSmr, cotiRse!ftr the petitfoners., . i ^Shn Vinod, TeKarn, ; Panel : L.awyer fori the State?resppriaent:.No.3:: ,:'1::'::. :?• . .':':, . ; (Passed^R^5th';slayofiAygust, 2019)/:' ' ' .Heard.:' . ,-.:^' ,::'.:':.:..'';.;::';,:" :-': : :. ' 1.. ;:'.:' ;2. • The defendants;:in.the,;syit tigve'prefen-ed tnis;Retition; under Article 227 •. of , the< .CoRStitHtipn ;. of inciia seekincil quashment oftheorder dateeii 22-02-201 Qanci 14-05-20-10i passed'by.fheTrialCou:rt.,..I:;^::..: ^. .,.^,', ',. . • ; ; ::."!': •:. 3. By order dated 22-02-20TO,\ffie;,learn®l Trial.iiSQurtl appears t6 havefaKen-up the^de<^rfdants';objectioh reg^nding; maihtaina!3ility:6f^hesuitURder|.Qrder,:7Rule 111 of theiCfC' whereas,; on ; 14-05-201-0i.^'thelplairitjfl5s' applicatjon^ i for i am®idmentoftheplainfhgs'beencoris.iderecian<lallowed.i 4. While hganng apglic^fion lirKdeF:QKJer7.Ru!e;11| oflttie CPC, on' 22-02-201 Q,.the.Tria(. CQurt.clirected'lttiei ptaimiffs tb | make nec^ssary avermentsin'thesp)ajnt;regarcljrig yajuation of We suif property and thergafter; the plajntiffs moved|, anF applicatjQn uriderOrcierBRule17QftteCP{3fQi"am®Rdmentin(i the plaint.to.make sBeeifi&;DleadjrigsTOaardina|valuatjon.i,., ^ • ^:: j :5., :. teamed counsei. ,?or ttte^petiHoner;'sui3mits|,tl'ia{ t(ieisaid| j imendment changes tlie ,nNBre'E|of ]fhe suit,'therefore,.ifnei ^appiication.should not-tisve'beenatiowedf • . ': ,- • .': • 6. ^ Gn perusal of the application, it would appear that the plaintiff is seeking to amend the plaint by submitting that the suit house is no longer jn existence and being a dilapidated structure, it has falien to ground. He still seeks prayer for declaration and partltion ofthe suit land. The said amendmsnt in the piaint does not^ehange the nature of th& suit; The suit. remains a suit for declaratjon and partition. It appears that since the defendants raised an objection regarding vaiuation and non-payment of appropriate Court ree by the plaintiff, an amendment has been soughf to ciarify that thestructure was diiapidated which is fallen to groiind and presently there Is no structure, therefore, the prayer for declaration ahd partition has been made with respect to the suitland. Such ah amendment is permissible; The challenge to the impugned order dated 14- 05-2010 has no substance astheTrial Court hasnoteommitted .anyerroroflawancljurjsdjctjonwhilepassingtheisaidorder. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further argued that while deaiing with his applieation under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, thetrial Courttias not passed any order regarciing the plea taken <n the applicafion that thesuit is barred under the principles of resjudieata. On perusal oftfie impugned order dated 22-02-2010; itaDpearsthatthetrialCourthasnot passed any specific SDeaKina order eitber to dismiss or to altow the application under Order 7 Rule 11 ofthe CPC. There isno discussiQn about the objection rai$ed by the defendants regarding maintainability of tte suit on the ground of resjudicata. . ^- 8. In view of above, it is directed fhafr the Trial Courtshail he^rthe parties tothe suit on the defehdants' appiication under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC regarding maintainability of the suit on the ground thaf it is barred'underthe'principlesof •9. With the above observation, the instant petition is disposed of. However, it is made clear tbat. this Court has 1.1.^, s s.jj.-i^ ;13";3sg*» i Kw; dismissed this writ petition with respect to chaHenge made to the order dated 14-05-2010. —_ .1 ^^: 10. Noorderasto costs. j Sd//- I Prashant Kumar Mishra I Judge i .j- ! Jl 1. 'i ii