^ MSGHCOURT OFCHHATTiSGARH:BILASPUR WRIT PET!T!ON fSV N0. 2338 OF2007 1) Narayan, S/o. Atma Ram aged about 32 years, Caste - Agharia, R/0. Vi!!age Tapranga, Tahasil Gharghoda/District Raigarh, CG. 2) Jeevan, S/o. Atma Ram.aged about 31 years, Caste - Agharia, R/o. Village Tapranga, Dist. Raigarh.Cg. 3) Roop Kunwar, S/o. Atma Ram, aged about 42 years,Caste - Agharia, R/o. Muralipali, Tahasil & DistrictRaigarh.CG. 4) Set Kunwar, S/o. Atma Ram, aged about 37 years, Caste - Agharia, R/o, Village Tilaipara, Tahasil Gharghoda.Dist. Raigarh, CG. esT-' RESPONDENTS 1) Deen Bandhu, S/o. Atma Ram, Defendants agedabout40years,R/o.Viliage Tapranga, Tahasil Gharghoda, DistrictRaigarh. /• 2) Zindal Steel and Power Limited, r registered office Hinsar 'Hariyana' through General Manager Shri Rakesh Zindal, S/o. Shri Anand Swaroop Zindal, R./o. Patrapaii, Raigarh, Tahasii & District Raigarh.CG. 3) State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Raipur, CG WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICL-E 227 OFTHE CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS. ORDER/ORDERS.DIRECTION/ DIRECTIONS. . -- ^-~~ ;; :"^r . f" ;B: Hon'bie Shri Justice Satish K. Agnihotri PRESENT: Shri M.K, Sinha, counselforthe petitioners. Ku. Dipali Pandey, Panel l.awyerforthe State. th (Passed pn 16" April 2007) .\ ^ 1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners impugn the order dated 19-02-2007 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Additional District Judge,Raigarh,in CivilSuitNo. 29-A/2005. 2. The indisputable facts are that the petitioners filed a suit on 2-5-2005 for declaration of possession and for declaration of registered agreements dated 9-6-99,1-5-99and 10-5-2001 asvoid.lnthesaid suit, the petitioners filed an appllcation uhderOrder6,'Rule 17 ofthe CQdeofCivil Prdcedurefor incorporating paraS-A immediately after para 8 arid amendment in para 10 in theplaint on 11-9-2006. 3. Additional District Judge, Raigarh, after hearing learned eounsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents and having perused the record heidthat the petitionershavesoughtfordeletion ofthe date of registeredsale deed dated 22-9-20Q1 It appears thatthe said typographica! mistake was allowed to beamended-accordingly. Incorporation ofpara 8-A stating together new facts would change the nature of the suit which was not permitted bytheCourtbetow. The triai. has alreadycommenced. The petitioners have failed to prove that in spite of due diligence, petitionefs could not raise the matter and did not make efforts to make the necessary amendments. Thus, the typographical error in the registered sale deed was ordered 4o be amended and the application for incorporation of para 8-A and amendment in para 10was declined. 4. Beingaggrieved,th8 petitioners havefiledthis petition underArticle227 of the Constitution, on the ground that the learffed Additional District Judge, ought to have allowed the amendment as the same was formal in nature. 5. I have heard leamed counsel for the petitioners, perused the pleadings, documents and theimpugnecl judgment appended thereto. 1 do notfind any infirmity, illegality orjurisdictional error in the impugned judgment/order passed /"' by the Court below. Thus, at this stage, as the trial is in the advanced stage, the petitioners are not entitled to seek any amendment ofthis nature which, according to the petifioners themselves, is forma! in nature. 6. lt is well settled principle of !aw that under Article 227 of the Constitutipn of India, this Court has jurisdiction of judicia! review &f the order passed bythe Court beiow, in the event, there is manifest and apparenterror on the face ofthe proceedings based on the clear Ignorance or utterdisregard to the provisions of law or there is grave failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby. Further, this Court can a!so entertain the petition in its supen/isoryjurisdiction if there is perversity, irregularity or iilegality in the process ofdecision, not inthe decision itself. 7. Applyingthe above settled principles of law to the facts ofthe present case, it does not warrant an interference with the decision passed by the Court below. 8. Thus,thispetitionisdismissed.Noorderastocosts. rR&lu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^