^ .s'<°/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR Writ Petition N0. .3>S^3 / 2004 PETITIONER ^•^e -^K^ ^y?^ <%^ ^^ RESPONDENTS ^^^"*3«^^ ..^.'ry'i Jamuna Bai, W/o. Gopalram Aged about 50 years, Through General Power of Attorney Santosh Kumar Gupta S/o.Gopal Ram, aged 34 years R/o. Baradwar-Basti, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS :1. Shivdayal, S/o. Judavan Aged about 69 years, 2. Gendram, S/o.Judawan Aged about 64 years, 3. Rajaram, S/o. Shivdayal Aged about 42 years 4. Bhuri Bai, Wd/o. Tibhau Aged about 81 years 5. Radheshyam, S/o. Tibhau Aged about 59 years All R/o. Village Baradwar-Basti Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 6. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Collector Janjgir-Charapa (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICL^ 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION_QF INDIA PROFORMA PARTY r ^V^^ fe'lJcb ^W^H^TWqhF '3^r ^{WM^, ^Til<-i4i<o, f^nRTy ^.....U.-..&^.:..a5feil...^, ^TOWtRWcli ~~ 7 7W1 ^n^T "?^F (^rf^5!^) iR<nw ^rf^r ^n^r Gb!^fd^fl'11ETO^Jf ^ ftx3t <F^^i< ^^tfHH^TT^T 07/01/2005 Shri B.L.Dembra, couns^l for the petitioner. Shri Akhi! Agrawal, Pan^! Law/yer for the State/respondent No.6. Heard on admission. The instant petition h^s been fiied by the petitioner as he is aggrieved by the order dated| 26/06/2001 passed in Civi! Suit No. 43- A/1997 by learned Civi! Judg^ Class-li, Sakti annexed as Annexure P-3 and by which the applicatio^ for amendment in the plaint has been rejected by the said Court on i^e ground that by the said amendment, the nature of the suit is 4i^4gRart| The suit of the petitioner before the trial -^ . ^'"^~. \. Court was deciaration and partip:ion for further deciaration that the adoption ^- deed and wi!i deed be declar^d illegal and by the proposed amendment the petitioner wanted to incorpc mesne profit and damages. Learned counsei for th^ Judge Class-ii has ilJegaiiy rej^ account of which the petitionei^ ^ not possibSe for the petitioner t| decree to that effect by the triai| I have heard iearned co^ I have perused the pj rate further reiief of separate possessior^^ $ petitioner submits that the learned Clvil cted the application for amendment and on .'^.'^f'.' shali suffer irreparabie injui-y and wbleh-ts 3 obtain the suit property in the absence^of Court. insel for the petitioner. aint and the proposed amendment and impugned order. So far as the| amendment sought to be incorporated by the petitioner and the relief tha<{ has been ciaimed by the petitioner by that amendment shaii be availabie |o the piaintiff.jki case the suit of partition is decreed as in the execution <4f the decreeToFpartition then the handing ovar of the oossession is imol icit. So far as the reiief of mesne Droflt is GRPRJ—FS/%-^/200(.—50,000. -j- ® 3?n^r ^T'f^rhF ^WT 3H^T $ft^i^» »nHdTdrHTcit T^T T^t<Lii<yi^, ^Til'H^co, 'f^rray JJ..£..^.:....&5S.9.^200 ^n^y? '<WF (ytt^^) ^nw^rf?^ 3?n^y -^- concemed, the same can be c! appiication under Code of Ci\ beiow is bound to adjudicate th Under these circumstad petition and accordingly the pet 'cM^fo^ilt ^H<riT ^* t^1cst ^^K <^3:yfW3Tf^T ^imed by the plaintiff by moving a separate \\\ Procedure in this regard and the Court ^ same after conducting the enquiry. pes, I do not see any merit in the present lition is dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge GRPRJ—FS/^—J//200(.—50,000. ^