mam WWW WW wm 7 OF THE CGY€¢1 x u uOm‘ ur lh'un: > ..rEm..." 1101‘ .. §suumnfuu1vh5£ “m...“ “m...“ A «air-urn“ . an. “v. nirendra iviis‘nra, J. Shri Safuddm Rajas, ooun ‘ 561 . for ‘Lue. . peiiiioner. Sim Bhaskar Pyasi,’P.L. f0: H6al‘CL The petitioner has flied 1 11.42007 of Annexunej P-l, pa S1111 BI). Guru, counsel fol“ respondents No. 1 to 3. {the State. C1ass~L Biiaspur, whereby the agLplication of the petitioner for amending the plaint has been rejected. ; ‘ \ ‘ \ , § ‘ his petition against the order ciated issed bv the learned 5‘11 Civil Judge PETI’T‘i ‘ iV'ER Kn'shna Sagar Gorakh, aged 42 years; son of PALmJFF i 91‘s Ski Avodhya Pra<ad, Rio Dayalband phowk, Y‘aya‘para Marg, gnaspur (gun) Versus REs?sHsEms EEFEKDAET§ 1. Amar Sin h, aged 48 yeam 2 Pratap S gh, aged about 46 years 3 Yashwant Singh, aged about :55 yeam 4 Rajendra ingh, aged about 35 years A11 sons of late Shvam Lai, Rio Dayaiband Chowk N yagara Maifg, Bilaspur {CG} 5 State Chhattisgarh, iin’ough Colieetor, 111200 51mm (Wu) WWW amnmm mmm WW‘&WW é7ai1%memé¥! Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that since the description of the suit property haci baen wmngiv mentionéd in tbs piaint du€ to typographical tamor, the petitioneri piaintiff with a viow to conect’ the above typographlcai enor, movec‘l an appiication for amendment. However, the appl cation was rejected by the triai Court on the ground that the plaintiff not only mentioned wrong description of the suit property hut also filed copy of the document i.e. pertains to the same land amendment does not appear ' petmoner further submits th t5- 1 which ‘escribed in the plaint and thus the be bonafide. Learned counsel for the the amendment was proposed at the initiai stage of the suit, even when the issues were not framed. The boundaiy marks of the suit iald has not been challenged and only due to typographical ermr, the property has been wrongly described, If the amendment application is allowed, no prejudice is likely to he caused to the respondents/ defendants. Un the other hand, respondents/defendants has supported the impugned order. Considering the fact that by the proposed amendment, the plaintiff only intends to amend amendment application was considered opinion of this C the application for amendment learned counsel for the f_ e<—~. amwin. mm the description of the property and the at the initial stage of the suit,‘ in the the Court below ought to have allowed ou . d ', XI‘HCa7 8 WWLW, W3; mm (Wu) *3, Mam ammamw WWW WW wWK $3i1wm in the reSult, application for amendmant prefe Amendment b6 canisd out with advised, may flie suitabie amendn me petmon is ailowed. Consequamiy, the [Ted by the petitioner is aiso allowed, in two weeks, The defendants, if so 16m in the Written statement. ‘ 1 1‘ Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/— Wm @1200