IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION N0. g f) TL OF 2.005 PETITIONERh / Lalchand Agrawal, S/o Lata Shri DEFENBANT NO IQ . Ramgopal Agrawal, Aged about ’ 61 ysars, Occupation : Business, g ,rugw R/o Behind Gandhi Ganj, Raigarh / “m WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE M CONSTITUTION OF INDIA $$" w“ .3\§5 Q‘éeb‘w‘f‘j Q. a‘w iv (Chhattisgarh). Versus «bx RESPONDENT ; PLAINTIFF Yashwant Sanwariya, Nanhelal, R/O Gandhi Raigarh (C.G.). RESPONDENT: DEFENDANT V,KT Shrivastava, Divisional Engineer, MP. Electricity Board, Near Gopi Talkies, Raigarh X22 I-HC— H,W, W o. o "mun“ o ......... ‘ WWW WW WEW l 0 at led t g r N h t or on a ara r it te peitioer rednt No.2 e cl h i n d s T r specificl denied th nancy of resndent o.1. I paragraphs 17 o 1 te pet oner herei rae a scifi ple that one V.K. Agrwal i t nt in th disputed premises. Ts written statement was filed on 4.4.1998, whereas aendment application was filed on 9.1 .998 an b ths application the petioner hern ply ted to insrt plea that Smt. Bhagirathi and others issu payme of rent fo the peri earne trial Court a notice to V.K. Agarwl’s firm for .11.199-to 31.0‘1994. therefore,‘ this amendment WW m 14.3.2005 Shri’HS. Patel, coun fo the etioer sel r pitn: Heard on admission. The petitoner has pefre this rit etition eng aggreved by order dated 03.999 (Annexure P-l) passed by learned Civ JUdge las-, Rir thereby rejecting the application o the etitior erein filed unde Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure f amendment in written sttemen. Brief facts aing filin of this petition are that espondent o.1 erein filed a civil sui f evicti nd rers of ent agans h tn 8s spone herin aiming te petitioner heren as ten t in the dispute premies. he petitione herein filed a written statement in which he aly e t po N n t 9 h ti n isd pec a a s e a e hi i rerd w p bi i 8L1 il Cs1 agah f pne r m 1 d y i it ei sim w n e a e nt r o has rejected the amendment application on the ground t at amendment which the petitioner l wants to insert by way‘of mendment application has already taken by him in Paragraph 17 to 19 of his Written statement, not necessary in order to decide the real controversy between the parties. a 11 1 Ld ‘ XI—HC-22 HW,W,W Wm Wm"... H”... 1H 200 .. ”u u. ........ no o. mam WW ‘ WW§WW éawanéw ¢l~ Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the record. Perusal of Paragraph 03.17, 18 85 19 of written statement shows that the petitioner erein has denied the tenancy and further specifically mentioned that V.K. Agarwal is tenant of respondent No.1 herein. Ey the amendment application the petitioner only Wanted to .nsert that Smt. Bhagirathi issued notice to V.K. Agarwal to pay therent and for that purpose trial court has already allowed the application of petitioner filed under Order 13 Rule 2 of CIPC for taking documents on record. Therefore, it is a matter of he controversy between the parties and moreover, the defence raised in the amendment application has already taken by the petitioner herein. In View of the above. counsel for the petitioner l illegality or infirmity in th Court. Therefore, the petitir accordingly dismissed at the Consequently, M.(W.) stands disposed of. necessary for decision of t evidence and this amendment is not I am of the opinion that learned 1as not been able to point out any e impugned for interference of this )n is liable to be dismissed and it is admission stage itself. P. No.719/05 e LA. No. 1763/05 Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge (sienna)