HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI H BILASPUR Writ PetitigArt'. 227) No.3492 of 2010 M/s H.R. Malik & Company, Contractor/ Propnetor Anand Kumar Mallk fhrough Specual Power of Attorney Santosh Golchha aged about 57 years, Slo Late Shn Kewalchand .Golchha . R/o Ushakiran, Malviya Nagar, Durg, Tahsil V &Distt. Durg (C.G.) > v Versus 1. Municipal Corporation Bhilai, through Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bhilai, Tahsii & Distt. Durg (C.G.) State of. Chhattisgarh Throug Collector Durg, TahSII & Distt Dur (CG) 3. Steel Authority of India Limited, through Managing Director, Bhilai lspat Industry. Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) PETITIONER/: (Plaintiff ‘_ {Writ petition unde'r Article 227 ofthe Cgnstitutibn or India} RESPONDENTSI: ' (Defendants) _ Present‘ I _ Miss Sunita Jain,'counsel for the petitioner. None present for respondent No.1, though served Mr Sushil D'ubey, Govt. Advocate tor the State/respondent No.2. Mr Shaiiendra Shukla counsei for respondent No 3 Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (17— -2010) a r lned counsel for the parties and perused the orde daed 7 2010 passed by the 6m CIVil Judge Class ll Durg in o./2007, whereby the amendment application In the plain le bt peitioner has been dismissed on the ground of inordinate ela earned counse for the petitioner submits that although the suit is. pn c 1999 and after provrding several opportunities of adducmg dce e 003 the petitioner has filed amendment application i e ye 09 aftr knowmg the facts relating to subsequent event but othe petitioner cannot be dismissed only on the ground f ordate deay and same can be adequately compensated by ) h g . I hve head ear r impugned t 2 CiVil Sutt N8—A t fid y'he t dy . L l ilendig sme evren smc 2 n‘ th ar 20 e the application f o inin l necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute, refore, the Couri below has alf of the pen'tioner. rightly dismissed the application filedon beh Definitely, l have perused the petitioner Copy of the has alleged filed amendment amendment application applicetion'and after‘inordinate its reply. delay‘but only on the ground ofoinordinate delay, the application for amendment of the pleading cannot be dismissed and adequately compensated by imposing cost. it can be The proposed amendment payment of cost of Rs:2,000/— to .6,000/-, within thirty days from' each ‘of the respondents i.e. total Rs . n view of this oder, l.A.No.1r stands disposed of. i Sd/- T.P. Sharma Mjjudge ._\\J f Son/1a l _ l, sax f eta . l r