CLJ^ XI-HC—78 ^s? -^wwi, y-^\w\<a, \~^w'uy. WtTWI (h*11«h W[^200 3TI^['<ra^ ('^3^?) an^i qa ft-fi* W^ •3TT^?T sh*i ••^. ^nwflftgan^i i'BU DH1 w. PLA2NTIFF Snrendra] Sharma, 39/133, Tahsil & MaMiaal 6.5 yea Cooperal Raipur," 1 T A* f •• Shri Maaoj PaTaiype, coun Heani. By fhis petition under Arti< petitioner has iiapugued the passed by fhe leai-ned 6th Civi} appUcation of fhe petitioiier/ been rejected. The petitioner/pIauitifF haj arrears of rent, eviction and fo: tenant, The respondent/defend^ averred ttiat fhere' was aa agreei 5.3.1994 for tlie sale of suit was paid towards eaxnest money he is ia possession of fhe said pr<^ *iiit-i41-i ^iiwff 4fvS <l"i<ai< ^siRm an^i (""? 'K, !d£s S '^^^j'^rsA' >00 ^5 f ^^f%,.^ Kiunar Shai-ma, S/o. Late A.B. aged about 64 years, R/o, House No, Mahamayipara. Purani Basti, Raipur, )istorict Raipur (CG) Singh, S/o. Mohaa Singh, aged about rs, R/o, 28, Suivodaya Housing ive Society Heerapur, Post Tatibandh [*ahsil & District Raipur (CG) el for the. petitioiier. le 227 ofthe Coustitution oflndia, the dpder dated 1.5.2008 (Annexzire P-1) Judge Class-I, Raip~ur, whereby fhe u|itifF for amendmeut in the plaiat has fQed a civil siiit (Annexu-e P-3) for possession agauist fhe respondent- [Ant filed his written stateinent aad jo-ent benyeea the parties executed on accojnmodation, an aro.oiint ofRs.35.000/- and by virtue of the said agreement, (jiperfy. After tlie written statementwas +- k XI-HC—7S '3^-<ii<ii<n4i, oflly'is, fsi<vii-My,< VWW <ih*11<»» WI,200 SiI^T tRqi' ( yi(3««t4) 311^1 W Ri-fi'ti '?isff 3'n^n »i*i •• - CWIlK fl^O ^W 2- ffled, the petitioner/plamtiff filed| P-5 on 20«hAugust2007 aad pro|j agreeinent dated 5.3.1994 was c| as the defeudeuit did not perform does not create aiiy right in fa| property and fhus, fhe possessio4 is illegal, unauthorized. Howeveij rejected by ffae trial Court with ^ filed by the laadlord for recoveiy| sround ofboaafide ueed aad the) nature 01 suit. It has been fiirthl filed at the belated stage when t| defeudant, In the considered opiiuon 4 coinmitted any fllegaJity, iDfemitvl iinpugned order which wan-anf jtirisdiction uader Article, 227 oft] In fhe resnlt, the pention h^ be dismissed. and it is accoTdiaglyldisiaissed. <t>l(<[tr)*<1t1 '^ffl^if "^ fsll<) <r<n-^i< ^affipTaitSCT auiendinent appjicatiou of Annexure posed to iacorporate pleading that the mcened by the plaintifi" on 25.4.1996 iiis part offhe contract, the agreeinent voiir of the defendant over the suit offhe defendant after 30th Jime 1996 , fhe application for aiaeudnient was ii observatkin that the instant suit is of an'ears of rent and eviction on the Iproposed aiaeudiaent wfll change (he "r held that fhe application has beeii tie matter is fixed for evidence of tfae f this Coiu-t, the coiu-t below has uot or j'urisdictional en'or in passuig the ts mterfereace in exercise of fhe te Constitutioa oflndia. te no substance, the saine deserves to Sd/- DhirendraMishra Ju<tee