1‘wé xx {62 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) w.P. c No. "W86 20 6 %,V 47,~#’ , PETITIONER ,:, Salikram, S/o. Nirmal Singh Patel, aged about 66 years, resident of village Sangitarai, Post Office — Chhatamuda, Tahsii and District — Raigarh (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1. z Daulat Ram Patel, S/o. Khemkaran Patel, resident of ~k aL village- Sangitarai, P.O. OQ t Chhatamuda, Tahsii & District O \\ a f")/ kh¢§§ 3:) {‘9‘ Raigarh (C.G.). \Q/ $ 2. State of Madhya Pradesh , Now Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) /3. Amrit Kunwar, widow of Virendra Kumar, aged ‘53 years, resident of village Bamha, Tahsii Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Kunti Bai, Wife of Mahegal Singh, ‘aged about 38 years, resident of village Dolesara, Tahsii Gharghoda, District ,Raigarh (C.G.) Lalita, wife of Dorilal, aged 36 years, resident of Post Office, /6. At present resident of village Padigaon, Tahsil Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) Rajesh Kumar, S/o. Virendra Kumar, aged about 34 years, resident of Tahsil Gharghoda, Raigarh (C.G.) At present of resident of Raymond, Lafarge Colony, Gopal Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) village Bamha, District Pashu Chikitsalaya, District Raigarh (C.G.) Meena, wife of Dr. Bodhiram, aged about 30 years, resident Chuna Bhatta, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.). Arun, S/o. Heeralal, aged resident of Raigarh, \oo of I near about 50 years, Bahma, Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.) near Commerce College, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) Dinesh Kumar, Son of Virendra Kumar, aged 32 y'ears, resident of Mukhya Q) @ resident of Bahma, Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.) /1’7. Chitrabhan, S/o. Khemkaran, aged about 69 years, resident of village Bahma, Tahsil Laiiunga, District Raigarh (C.G.) 1/8. Shiviai, son of Khemkaran, aged about 67 years, resident of village Bahma, Tahsil Laiiunga, District Raigarh (C.G.) Manoj, son of Padum Singh Patel, aged about 37 years, ’ 20. Laxmi Prasad, son of Padum Singh Patel, aged about 35 years Jeevan, son of Padum Singh Patel, aged about 33 years 22. Ram Pyari, widow of Padum / Singh Patel, aged about 60 years, No.19 to ‘22 all resident of village Bahma, Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.). ///- 23 about Suresh, 40 son years, of Haridhar resident aged of village Bahma, Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.) @ At present 0f resident of village Batauh‘, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 24. Rajaram, son of Haridhar, aged about’38 years, resident of viliage Bahma, Tahsii Laiiunga, District Raigarh (C.G.) Purandhar, son of Nirmai Singh, aged about 66 years, resident of village Brahma, Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh (C.G.) Savitri Bai, widow ofVNakul, aged about 57 years, 627. Shashi, wife or Baijnath, daughter of Nakul, aged about l Bahma, 37 years, Tahsil resident Gharghoda, of village District Raigarh (C.G.) At present resident of : C/o. Badri Patel, village & Post Dhanangar, Tahsil Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 28‘ Chhotu @ Devendra Kumar, son of Nakul, aged about 32 years, No. 26 & 28 both resident of village Bahma, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) 'i‘“i WRIT PET 29. Vijay Shankar, son of Baldev Singh, aged about 55 years, resident of village Sangitarai, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.). ITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA XI-HC—78 p.‘ \. x , WWW WWW L y H W , W , W 1mmm .Li.€..(.c>.$l.a;.m%c » zooe Wm (W) matmm WW§WW $3If§nan3m «_(\ , 5-1-2w/ Shri Rag‘nvendra Pradhan, icamcd counsel for the patitioner. This petition is directed against the order of Anncxure Pil by which ieamed H Additional Civii Judge, Class- petitionei‘ under Order 6 Ruie 1'7 of a Learned counsei for the pet. petitioner/piaintiif did not change 1 to explain the facts pleaded hy the .plaintiE in the plaint in detaii, which were based on the documents which is already by the parties. H, Raigarh has rejected the application of the the C.P.C. tioner submits that the amendment sought by the lature of the suit and the same was preferred just 1 have heard iealned counse availabie on record and Various applications filed i for the petitioner. The suit of the plaintid‘ for eclaration and perpetual injunction has been filed on the pleading that partition has b en edected between the patties and in pursuance of the same the plaintiE is in p session, however, the defendants are trying to dispossess him, therefore, the suit ‘ The amendment sought by documents wherein factum of partit the same are matter of evidence. It be pleaded and not the evidence and on thesegounds the Court below has rejected the application for amendment. been filed. the petitioner in the plaint pertains to certain ion has been admitted by the parties and as such, is settled law that in a plaint facts are required to P.T.O. HW,®$W,W Wm ow ‘6. (Q).N4 ; j.‘;g.6 200 Q mm (W) WWW WWW WW§WW QKWW mwm ’2 Considering the fact that uhc appiication for ammdment has been prefelred by the piaintiff after framing of issues and commencement of triai and the facts sought to be incorporated are admittediy of the year 2003, thene is no iilegaiity or infirmity in the impugied order which requires interference under extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. In the resuit, the petition t at the admission stage itseif and is reing devoid of substance is liabie to headismissed accordingly dismissed. 1 Dhirendra Mishi‘a