%j%^s y :%r:^v;H © IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (2271 N0. ^357f/2010 PETITIONERS (Plaintiffs) .^ r/r^ s' ,^4' f^ .^<^ ^" -^^ rv' 1. ]V[6ii Lal Son of late Bhagat Rajwar, ^ aged about ^^'years, 2.'^^Ramdayal Son of late Bhagat Rajwar, aged about ^^_ years, 3.< Brijlal @ Vijay? Son of Late Bhagat Rajwar, aged about -s^years. v^ 4.c Snat. Dasinet D/o. late ^ Rajwar, aged about Soyears, Bhagat 5. Smt. Soniya @ f^osiya widow of Late ^^ Bhagat Rajwar, aged about 'JSyears, All are R/o. Village Makarbandha and Bhuvneshwarpur, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. (Defendants) Rarauniya Widow of Late Jairam, aged about 7^ " years, R/o. Village Makarbandha, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) Mu. Sarihano wife of Kalamsai Rajwar, aged about ^B years, R/o. Village Kaskela, P.S. JhUmiU, TahsU Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.), Chhatrapal, Son of Shivbalak Panika, vs^ aged about S©years, R/o. village Govindpur, P.S. and Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.), ^fr^^ 9 cS^ Nandu Son of Bodhan Ram Rajwar, ^ aged about S^ years, Dayaram, Son of Bodhan Ram Rajwar, aged about ^Q years, No. 4 and 5 are R/o. Village Bhuvneshwarpur, P.S. Ramanuj Nagar, Tahsil Surapur, District Surguja (C.G.), State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon\ble Shri Prashant Kumar IVfishra Writ Petition (227} No. 6354/2010 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Moti Lal and others Vereus Ramuniya and ofliers Aopearance: Shri Narayana Rao, counsel for the petitioners. Shri R.R. Sinha, Panel Lawyer for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE coNSTmmoN OF INDIA ORALORDER (29.10.2010) The trial court has dismissed the plaintiffs application under Order 6 Rule 17 ofCPC. The suit was filed in the year 1992 with a prayer in para 16 (^) in the plaint seeking partition and delivery of possession. The said relief was deleted oa application filed by the petitioners which was allowed on 22/10/2009 as is reflected from the copy ofthe plaint (Annexure P-1 ) filed in the writ petition. (2) In the impugned order, it has been mentioned that the subject application under Order 6 Rule 17 ofCPC seeking leave to amend the plaint for claiming relief of delivery of possession has been moved when the matter was already fixed for j5nal arguments on 30 August, 2010. In the subject application it is not mentioned as to on what date the plaintiff was dispossessed. The application is not only belated, but is seeking leave to incorporate a pleading which was ^) mitially there in the plaint and was subsequently deleted on application moved by the petitioner. It appears that the application is malafide and has been moved only to protract the litigationwhich is pending since 1992. (3) The leamed trial court has not committed any such error of jurisdiction warranting interference in exercise of powers under article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. There is no Ulegality which is writ large or is manifestly illegal in exercise ofjurisdiction. (4) The writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge v\