^\ PETITIONER: ^•y. ^•^'...-•••" IN THE mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT: BILASPUR W. P. Art. 227 No.W^ OF 2010 SINGLE BENGH Dhandas aged 50 years, son of Shri Ramdeendas ^"..^ \ ^;;^..-••"" '^^'"". ^ RESPQNDENTS: Manikpuri, resident of village Rogda, tahsil Janjgir, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) fDefendanf) VERSUS ^^^. ^. j sA.^^pife S ^ •^\ (—-7^ 1. Garudsingh aged 50 years, son of Shri Vishramsingh Rajput Ksatri, resident ofvillage Akaltara, tahsil Janjgir, district Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2. Santram aged 55 years, son of Shri Horilsingh Gond, 3. Umenda Bai aged 50 years, wife ofSantram Gond, 4. Nankisingh aged 52 years, son ofHorilsingh Gond, All 2 to 4 are residents of village Taraud, tahsil Janjgir, and district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Plaintiffs') 5. State of Chhattisgarh through the District Collector, Janjgir, district Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. The petitioner herein respectfully begs to submit as under:- 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIQNER: - HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 4470 of2010 PETITIONER Dhandas VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Garodsingh & olliers fWRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OFfi^A) tSB: HontbleMr.N.K.Asarwal,J.) Present : Shri Somnath Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri VK Pandey, Advocate for respondent No. 1 to 4. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for State. ORALORDER (Passed on 11.04.2011) The instant petition, filed under Article 227 ofConstitution oflndia calls in question the legality and propriety of order dated 16.07.2010, passed by the IInd Civil Judge Class I, Janjgir, in Civil Suit No. 388-A/05, whereby the respondent's application for amendment of plaint filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was allowed. Shri Verma, learaed counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit: the application was highly belated and without due diligenee the application was filed after lapse offour years, and therefore, the trial court has committed jimsdictional illegality in allowing the above application. On the other hand, Shri Pandey, leamed counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 to 4 would submit : amendment sought was t relevant forjust decision ofthe case, filed before commencement of trial and merely on the reason that it is belated, amendment caimot be refiised, and tfaerefore, the trial court has rightly allowed the respondent's amendment application and the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. I have heard the counsel appearing for tfie parties and pemsed the order impugned. The trial court, having found amendment is relevant, allowed the respondent's amendment appliestvm vide order impugned. It is also not in dispute the same has been filed before commencement oftrial, therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in allowing ^ie above amendment application warranting interierence of this court underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from ititerfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on tihe faee ofthe record, which is not in the present case. The petition has no merit and the same is acoopdingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge Sahu