IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR:C.G. W.P.227. no. \ §2(b /2011 K‘ 4. Union Bank of India, at Mahavir Gau Shala Complex,K.K.Road,Raipur,C.G. 5. Satya Prakash, aged 45 yrs, s/o Shri R. P. Jhunjhunwala, r/o M.I.G.,D-12, Shailendra nagar, Raipur, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIN OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/ CERTIORARAI/ PROHIBITION OR DIRECTIVE /ORDERS IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. Amit Kumar Singh, aged 40 yrs, s/o Shri Prakash Singh, r/o House no. A-1, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, C.G. Versus. I. oé“ _ Mohd. Farishta. ,r 2. Malik Mohd. Farishta s/o late Mehandi Mohd. Farishta. / 3. Murad Farishta s/o late Mehandi Mohd. Farishta. All axe caxe of Shri Murad Farishta at Secundrabad TVS, Raj Bhawan Road, Hyderabad, A.P. WK HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No. 1528/2011 PETITIONER Amit Kumar Singh Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Ashraf Bano and others SB:-M HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL J PRESENT :- Shri Bhishma Kingar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri B.D. Guru, Adv. for respondent No. 4. None Shn' Rahul appears Tamaskar, f0? respondents Advocate No. for 1 the to 3. respondent No. 5. O RA L O R D E R- (53552011) Instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of ¢ India calls in question the legality and prOpriety of the t order dated 5—3—2011 passed by the IXth Additional District Judge, Raipur ‘in Civil Suit No. 2l~A/2006 whereby and Whereunder petitioner’s “application for amendment has been partly disallowed. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that petitioner/plaintiff t: instituted a suit claiming relief of declaration and permanent injunction against respondents/defendants. Both the parties adduced their evidence and with the consent of the parties, the matter was fixed for fmal 2‘3 argument. At this stage, the instant application for amendment of plaint was filed by the petitioner. Trial g Court partly allowed the amendment proposed inftpara'”3 remaining amendments were disallowed. regarding change of name of defendants No. 4 and 5 and f 3. Shri Kingar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, relief: oféspeeific performance oflcontra'ct sought- (in the case is already time barred, however, the petitioner is , 9 n 43mm 2H pm‘r entitled for protecting his possession in view of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. In order to clarify the above fact, the proposed amendment was sought and therefore, learned trial Court has committed illegality in dismissing petitioner’s application for amendment in above regard. 4. Indisputably, both the parties have led their evidence and based on pleadings and evidence, the above point can be argued by the petitioner in the case. 5. In View of above, learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in disallowing the above part of amendment warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of Ind1a 6. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from 1nterfer1ng w1th the order passed by the Court below except 1n such cases Where pervers1ty, illegallty or jurisdictional error 1s wnt large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 7. Therefore, the petition being without substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. rimllw \ut \ lk ”H ’UH HI Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge w‘\<w\x :x;Jul'.\‘ m’ p'r:w.. iv-;l.