ii^ ^ ^^ £e?iS^.g sy E;'S^g.M'§ ^a- (O' ^o. .^ --•:^^ta^ .AW <<t\\-^' 0\^ -G9 IN THE HIGH COURT.OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARJ-1 W.P. (C) N0. S3^1> /2006 PETITIONER Plaintiff ^CTc^^' -^^ y'w^^ ^^^ RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS Dr.Vijay Kumar Soni S/o Late Sunderlal Soni aged about 43 years R/o Behind National Educational Society, Kailash Nagar, Sikola, Durg, P.H.No. 17, Ward No. 17, Durg, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. COIVIIVIISSIONER Municipal Corporation Durg (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector Durg (C.G.) c!~*^' f. ^y'a v ~""e^ F'y.. I"-v ^/<. ": !»~, ^~^f ^l^, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA T1\ / '7l XI-HC-78 SIT^TqiTl^.ii* (Wsn^Tsnilf 3ST;^rai?ra', aiTfly'is, Rx'ii^y .iy.f.T...^.as. *11*1WI Sh*1 |ch • • •"•• •••••-••'•• •"y • ^- 200 L/°A 3ii^i 4a<*> (li?li^cl<iW) CTcTRRHf^tTSn^T Du^ recotds 08.12.2006 Shri D.N. Piajapati, Heard on admission. By way of ttus Writ Constitutfon of India, fhe validily aad propriely ofthe| VII Civfl Judge Class-II, which, Ws appUcation fite^ Section 151 ofthe Code of plaintjhas been dismissed bj A perusal of the filed a suit for declaratkitn nijunction against the Muni|c of Chhattisgarh. He has directed to reconstruct thcl based upon tifle. la the ataendinents stating many action of demolition under< prayed for uicorpoiating to fh.e plaintiff,are relevant The trial Court has df the ainendments proposed aad it appears to be creattu|e I have gone fhrough the proposed amendiaents. C^iiusel for the petitioner. B'etition ftled under Articfc 227 of the l)eti.tk»aer has chalkaged fhe legatity, |order dated 29.09.2006 passed by the (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.2-A/2006, by under Order 6 Rule 17 read with <hnfil41-l ll*«'lTffte<^<Rlt<il< ^ari^Tsn^r ivil Procedure for ainendiuent of the the said Courfc would show that the plaintiff has of title and also for permanent ai|cipal Corporation, Durg and fhe State ^lso prayed that the Corporation be deinolished portion. The suit waa aforesaid suit, fhe plaintifiF has soiight ^acts pertsuning to fhe illegalily of fhe (aken by the Corporation. He has legal provisions which, according fhe purpose ofdeinolition etc. ^missed this application holdiag fhat ^re not wifhin the pumew of fh.e suit ii|e ofan afterthought. ^he plaint and have also goae fhioi^h vanous fbr P.T.O. 'nc. ?' XI-HC-78 3^ •<<i^i<f<<, aTflw'i?, Ricouy HiHcirsbm* .A/^.5J.O/.^ 200 3ll^?l 4a«h (yld's"<.<r) •m^rw^TW aw an^r shi<icb ?TtrRreflfisTa:n^r <=hNF«<fl-< tii>«iT^''te^t'<Ri'wi< ^'wf^Tan^r In flie opinion of f^ia Court, for the purpose of relicfs clauned in the plaiat, su(=h ainendments are not necessarity required to be mcorporated in the pbint There is no iBegaUty i^. fhe order passed by the trial Coiirt in dismissing the amendment ^pplication. There is no merit in ^he petition and the same is dismissed ia limine. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge P.T.O.