^ ^'.^'" ^' .^ ^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCG) vy. 2-2-7 WRIT PETITION'^ N0. \A?,% /2008 PETITIONERS/, 1. Kartik Ram, aged about 55 years, S/o. Bodh Sai, caste - Chikwa, 'y ^2. Mukund Ram, aged about 53 years, S/o. Bodh Sai, caste - Chikwa, Fagnu Ram aged about 50 years, S/o. Bodh Sai Chikwa All are R/o. Vill. Palideeh, Tah. Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (CG) VERSUS ^3. A^ ^^ /¥^y RSPONDENTS -i. DEFENDANTS ^^ f/ ^^>^ ^A^ ^T^y , 5. '•"*;>•'.. """•<-^ ..^ ^0^ ^ 8. Udai Ram aged about 55 years, S/o. Dilsai Chikwa, Mu Rajotin Wd/o. Masatram Chikwa, aged about 50 years, Dileshwar @ Dinesh S/o. Masatram Chikwa, age about 30 year Khuleshwar S/o. Masatram Chikwa, aged about 25 years • Kirtibhushan @ Kudharu Chikwa, aged about 20 years Bajrang Ram S/o. Dilsa Chikwa, aged about 60 years Mu. Kunti Bai Wd/o. Budhnath Chikwa agedabout45 years Gajendra S/o. Budhnath Chikwa, aged about 15 years (M^inor) through mother Kunti Bai. ,9. Upendra S/o. Budhnath Chikwa/aged about 12 years, caste Chikwa (Minor) through mother Kunti Bai. /10. Loknath S/o. Dilsai Chikwa, aged about 50 years /II. Mangal Sai S/o. Dayaram Chikwa, aged about 50 years, A2. Sundar Sai S/o. Dayaram Chikwa, aged about 45 years ,/y. ,13. Bundsai S/o. Dayaram Chikwa/aged about 45 years A4. Mu Laxmibai Wd/o Dayaram aged about 75 years ,15. Lohar Sai son of Budhiram Chikwa, aged about60 years ,16. Kumitra Bai son of Pujeri ram Chikwa, aged about 45 years R/o. Village Sahaspur, Tah. Bagbahar, Distt. Jashpur (CG) u ,17. Shankar S/o. Madniyam Chikwa, aged about60years , 18. Rameshwar S/o. Gangayam Ghikwa, aged about 58 years, 19. Mu. Kahamobai D/o. Fokiram Chikwa, aged about 58 years 20. Mu. Itwari Bai Rakhni Holsai aged about 50 years 21. Mangal Sai son of Holsai aged about 35 '} years 'l' 22. Respondents No.l to 15 and 17 to 21 are the R/o. Village Palidih, Tah. Patthalgaon Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) State ofChhattisgarh, through the Collector, Distt. Jashpur (CG) (Formal Respondent) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. !} (9-^^ ^ ^> COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BttASPUR Hon'ble Shrl Jystlce Prashant Kymar PETITJONERS RESPONDENTS Wrlt (227) No. 1988 / 2808 t<^rtlk Ram aod Versus Udai Ram and athers. Shri A.N. BhaRta, counsel for the petitloners. None for respondents No. 1 to 21, though served. Shfl Sushll Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the No. 22. ARTICLE 22T OF THE OF INDIA In thte 227 of the of Is to the • by the trial the Order 6 Rute 17 of C.P.C. (2) The the suit for and They the for of the oo the ground that of the old it Is to on the and The pialntlff has introduced Schedule 'B1 wlth the to numbers. to the sn the of numbers on be in and the I.® for and / ofthe sy'st. ^2- ^ (3) The tria} Gourt has rejected the appElcation for amendinent only on the that the amendment te rsot ctear. (4) tn the oplnlop. of this Court the by the tria! Court for the Is not It is iaw that when the Is for and c-f the of and the Is not In terms of- the of 6 17 of C.P.C., the be The trlal Court Is not to go to the of the amendrRent. The trial Court has Irregularity the (5) The l,ivrlt Is The is and as a consequence the for In the pS-alnt P/5) te allowed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge sgrf