SINGLE BENCH ^ ^- ^ f ^ AT ^te;^^.i?*-5-^-^, rc>. ^'r38^' Lina Wa/^ Rm. Sui^wa jC.G-.)- ; /:1] ^ ^/ /^y ,^1"-:/ 21 41 5} Joi^^ 52 8/o. ¥.?ord No, 18, Randhi ¥/ard, Nigam, Ambikapur, P.S. W/Q. R/o. NQ. 18, weat* Jaiswal nharmshal&, Bauripm-a, Nigam, |C*Cj*l W/Q. Soni, Aged about 45 yearg, R/o. Mahatma Ward No. 18 (Ahead Ptadhj Ainbikapur, DiBfefe. Surguja (C.G.) OiH(^r, Coip^^tion, Amblkapux^ jCollector, Sur^rmi Ambikapur, Distfc filstrict, 5 QW Qt XI-HC-78 *fl*tc51 ^*T \ycmi^tw\vw, u^w<o, Roi<<iy<< .^^•-^ hp / 3TT^$Tq^P ((jclijd^) ^2oa^ ^Tlt^Tqnf^N? ?CTTCT^$T^h^i<b ?^?TT^T?^Rd OT^^T <pi<tIo<ilvT WR^f^'I^^i^t^ix-^ix ^3rf^T3TT^^T 4-81-2005 applicati^n f<|>r 16-&-200S Heard Mr. Manoj admission. By this writ petition unde^ India, the petitioner has qujs correctness of orders dated Court has rejected the Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C, for raising the plea regarding th< file election petition and also th4 view of the provisions of Sectiorl Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinaf^er the application filed by the under Order 14 Rule 5 of the C.H. The order impugned date<p dated 16-8-2005 are, prima Therefore, notice of this writ| respondents as the issuance of the proceedings of the election feel aggrieved by this order, t^e application before this Court Brief facts leading to No.l herein, the husband of petition questfoning the electio4 Councillor of Waid No.18, the petitioner herein filed writt^n Para^ype, counsel for the petitioner, on undet- Artrcle 226/227 of the'Gonstitution of ^sfcloned the legality, propriety and & 16-8-2005, whereby the trial filed by the petitioner herein under amendment of the written statement fact that the plaintiff ia not entitled to ^.t the election petition is time barred in 441 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal referred to as 'the Act% and rejected herein for framiag additional issue :t.c. 4-8-2005 and the consequential order facjie, perverse and UaNe to be set askle. petition is not being iasued to thss tiotice is going to cause further delay in p^tition. However^ if the respondente still ten they wHl bs at liberly to n»ve an for|recalling/ mcxlification of this order. filin^ ofthis writ petition are that respo^dent spondent No.2 herein, filed an eleotion of the petitioner herein on the post of Mun|cipal Corpomtion, Arrfoikapur, of which statement Thereafter the petitioner petit|oner fadie re& XI-HC-78 vd?c|-«sisl^i|»f',^l(iiri^i.:fiw ^ ^TT *11NN>1;IW1T^ ^•••••••••••••••iriiiiiriiii^ar"" »»»^» tlJI'wB' ^ @ 11'^llllf1! 3;"^Wft:(N^6t^TR %^: OT^TWllSRR. ^nsn^^TSPHbp !v&s -R •l!^r^|t^acff^sf^ ^. 3^ hab herein moved ^n ^pplieation amendment of the written state^ 13 & 14 to the efiectl that the election fcy filing anj electk>n provisions of Section |4-41 (3) (s) been filed within 30 jdays fron1| election or from the date of pi| election petition is time barred. So far only is^ues were regarding the tegal issue and pl of the election petitiOn; There| allowed this amendment, but dated 4-8-2005 is pferyerse an Similarly, the subjetet matter consequential affcer amendmer framing of the issue regardir challengp the electiQn and to impugned orders are qua&hed a further after considering the ap{ the light of above obs^rvation. Accordingly, the writ petit quashed. | In view of jthis ord No.7932/2005 stand ^lisposed o; Parties are entitled for cer -. <^i<<IE<^^ ^'(^^ hBliTs<?<^ws'm ^[K.^ITF^W^^^^^ ^^.^^ u^ider Order 6 Rule 17 af the C.P.C. for |nent by inserting additienal pamgraphs ^laintiff is not entitled fo challenge the betition and also that jin view of the |of the Act, the etection petition has not the date on which thej result of such Iblication in the Gazettd, therefore, the framed. Additional plea No.14 was ea No.14 was re^rding nmiinteinability bre, leamed trial Gourf ought to haw refused, therefbre, theimpugn^i order d the same is liable tb fc^ set askle. of order dated 16-^-20C^ will be t of wntten statemenf:, that will be g right of the respoadent herein to fite election petitfon. J As such, the :. nd the trial Court is dir^cted to proceed Aication filed by the petitioner herein^ in on is allaw^l. Tte orders impugned are ?r, M.(W.)P.No.3567/2005 and I.A. tified copy of this order^i Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^-