'Swf ^i<ii^<<, yiTfl^'ls, fairtiyy t||*1dl (btllcb' ~^ 200 ?I^?T 'VSISK (Tpf^gqg) an^i.qir R;-iitb wii sn^i gnro PEtlTIQNER &EI NQ REtPON&ENTS PL4INTEFFS NC| 26J t^iiwflfro sn^T SINSLEBENCH^HQN'BLE WSlnCE DHIRENDR^ MISHR^ W.P. tCl No.d088/2007 •ENDANT 1 Awadh Bihaii Namdeo, age< Shiksha Karnti Janta, Tahsil- Namdeo, about 36 Sovernment Primary School, pemetara, District Durg (C.6.). Vs Kuntar RE^PONDENT DEF;ENDANT .z 03.2008 1. Ashok aged about| 2. Kumari (minor) age^ Minor girls lesji Adiok Jain, S/f (SINCED^, 3. Prayeen J4 about 6 father Shr| 4. Jaiprakash| Jain, agec) Viltage-1 District- 5. Atal Bih4i Namdeo, ai|| Agency, D| E)urg. Darhi Mr. S.C. Verma, Advocate for tH Mr. P.P. Sahu, Advocate for res(| Heard. CM*i[<n<i1*i tntRff if fsf£)r.(,f<ri^ii ^iaiRn 3)i^i S/o Bhagutandeen years, Occupattoti- Jain, S/o Bhanwar Lal Jain, |39 years, R/o Oarhi. ^roddha Jain, &/o Ashok Jain ) age|rf about 8 years. lesjal representative her father Shri fo Bhanwarlal Jain. IAD) in, S/o Ashok Jain (nninor) aged ^ears, k.ga\ representatiye his Ashok Jain, 5/o Bhanwarlal Jain. |Jain, © Raja Jain, 5/o Bhouiworlal about 20 years, All are R/o P.5. Darhi, Tahsil- Bemert'ara, t^ui^ (C.6.) Bih^ri Namdeo, 5/o Bhagwandin aj|ed about 32 years, Director, Gas »rhi, Tahsil- BemeTara, DisTricT- je petitioner. s^ondent No.l to4. OTB^F e>*r ga«na«i,iw-ik'iid —FS/59— 8/;nn^ —30,cuu. 'yesj ^i\w\^, WT^wfG, fsictK-iy sf^sw R'li* '^[ 3H^T ?h*1lch Wv\\ (hMlcb •V^ 200 sn^yr wra? (4<iif-l«<<iti) ^dTW ^lftB 311^1 -L By this petition under^ petitioner has impugned the cbl^^tl'1 fi\*i^ ^^^ <P>l^$l< •^siRnfli^f Art'icle 227 of the Constitution of India the order dated 1.8.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge, Class-1, ^emetara in Civil Suit No.l-B/03 whereby the leamed trial Courf' has rej^cted the application of the defendant No.l petitioner herein fi!ed unde^- Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amending the written statement. 1 Learned counset for ^e petitioner submits that the petitioner was the emptoyee of Crystat Cifedit Corporation Company Limited, Durg in which the plaintiffs have co^itributed certain sums under the scheme. A suit has been filed by resp^indent No.l/plaintiffs for recovery of the amount deposited by thenn compcny has not been arra<| way of an application for ^mendment of Annexure P-2 had proposed amendment in his written Company Limited, Durg is a the observations that the p with the above company, however, the said 'ed as defendant. Tne petitioner herein by statement that Crystal Credit Corporation necessary party: agreement relied upon by the plaintiffs is a forged dc^cumentond the suit is barred by limitation. However, the above amendi)'ient has been rejected by the trial Court vide impugned order. I have heard leamed <|ounsel for the petitioner. The Court below has r|ejected the application for amendment with aintiffs have already closed their evidence ^esf -^m^, ^w\<i, Kxti'yy HIMcll **41+ "^ 200 ail^t 9n Kiiti '^STT STT^T ?t)*llct» ^ an^?r xigq; (^l^w) l^IIWafel-CT^I -3 for recording evidence of the defendants. and the matter is fixed v Defendant No.l has alreacjy filed obj^etrons under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC. The question that a^reement is a forged document is matt'er of evidence. So far as limiti frumed by the Court- in th (ition is concemed, there is already an issue adducing evidence by bot(i Credit Corporation Compan^ statement and there is nd defenckint. After going througl^ that there is no illegality, the court' betow in passing injustice to the petition itself. '4il^-lft^ 'RW^Tf '^,'f^St' •<f^lt$l<, ^; sjfaii sii^i s regard and that can be decided only after the parties. Objection re9arding Crystat Limited, Durg is already there in the writt-en necessity for addin9.the above eompany as the impugned order, this Courl' is satisfied ^ifirmity or jurisdictional error committed by fhe impugned order which may cause manifest ^r warronting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Art-icle 2|27 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the pejl'ition has no substance, the same deserves to be dismissed and is accord|ngly hereby dismissed at the admission stage Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge