^^{o ^ ^ s ^ i-.' IN THE HIQH COURT OF 3UDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.^ WRIT PETITION ( C 'i N0. ^ /2007 PETITIONER .^>" ...-""'-<: ^%>" ^•";^-;^-'" Smt. Ma!a Dubey Wife ofOr. Shri T. N. Dubey Aged abbut 37 years Resident of Gltanjail Nagar Gali No. 6, Tehsi! and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ^-"^ .^' ^ A..-'' ,^ RESPQNDENTS VERSUS 1. Smt. V'dya Dev' Wife of Shri Lakhan Lal Sharaf Aged about 63 years Resident of Gitanjali Nagar Biiaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. SantoshSoni Son of Jagannath Soni Aged about 42 years Resident of GitanjaSI Nagar Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Tuls' Bai Wife of Navrang Agrawal Aged about 47 years Resident of Near KQfbaia Chowk, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Ramu Dewangan Son ofShri Nakul Dewangan Aged about 34 years Resident of Near Karbsla Chowk Biiaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. Vijay Verma Son of Mangal Verma Aged about 35 years Resident of Near Karbaia Chowk Bliaspur, Chhattisgarh >. Coiiector Bi!aspur, Dist. Biiaspur Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITSQN UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN^HE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI AND FOR ISSUANCE OF XI-HC-78 ^^T "MNK'I^, «iTf1'H4|(S, (c|dl^^< * i. o f f'\ ^^/&7 ^l^dl $b<4|cb *v^<*/*»*^*>yt<**~'^^ 200 3TI^?T 'cra^? (^c|i^cj<^') ^n^T^rf^Tf^ cCT"3:n^T^TT< ^cTT^K ^fScT W^T 22.1.2007: Mr. Amrito Das counsel for th^ petitioner. This petition is directed agair^st the by Civil Judge, CIass -1 Bilaspur appiication for amendment in the w| the trial Court on the ground that th{ to the amendment preferred by the order dated 13.12.2006 passed h Civii Suit No. 247-A/2005 where an i|ritten statement has been aiiowed by ^ amendment sought is consequentiai |!aintiff in the piaint. Learned counseS for the petiti| consequential amendment in th( amendment which was permitted the impugned order the defendant written statement in the garb of co| statement which is not permissibp permitted it wi!I never end. I have heard counsel for the| order whereby the application for ai|r been aiiowed. Considering the nat|. impugned order this court is of th| occasion to the petitioner by interference from this Court under Thus the petition has no substanc^ dismissed. It is accordingiy dismiss^ W£rf^ft^HTOTf^'fe^ ^RZK ^3Tf^T3TT^T :i|oner submits that the piaintiff opted for plaint in the light of the Same h the written statement. However, by ^as been permitted again to amend his |isequential amendment in the written pe under iaw and if this process is petitioner and perused the impugned afriendment in the written statement has ^re of the amendment allowed by the opinion that no Injustice is liSoly to impugned order which requires ^rticte 227 of the Constitution of india. and the same is therefore iikely to be bd. = the Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O. ^