^ ?f" I?". ^ ;f^ ^ |j||i|||£ 1? IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR FC.G.1 WRITPETITION NO.^<B^/2005 PETITIONER p^'^^-^ RESPONDENTS X?<2J?-e-^^ci y\^r /• '^v v' .oF^ '"•'•^ .^^' Badri Prasad S/o Shri Bhagwat Prasad Sahu, aged about 67 years, R/o Taraud, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa [C.G.]. VERSUS 1] ^^^y .^' 2^ -^t""" ..,..-'^y ^-' ^:"r^X Smt. Saroj Awasthi, aged about 65 years, W/o Malik Lal Shri Vikash S/o Malik Lal, aged about 30 years. Both are resident of Devnandan Nagar, Bilaspur, Tah. And District Bilaspur LC.G.]. PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Details of petition: - XI-HC-78 ^3wT 'r^Wlri^,^-^'{-l<l<o, [qrtl'(-iy>< Wrei ^qfq? ..^.^-&.AA^---- Wt,200S- an^^T q^p (^ci^ci^) 3n^$T^TRVlJ<b PWOT^^TaRFP g^TT^f? xiRa OT^^T 10-5-2d05 <1iv<i 6-10-2005 Hear-d Shri Ram i<um<4< 8y this petstion unde| the petitioner has qu&stion^d of 1tie order doted BiJa^pur whereby learned the petjtioner fiied under tt'ie C,P,C, for amendment oflthe P^rusal of th^ impu9n| perverse, therefore, the notice to the re^pondent4 furth&r deiay the respondents stil! fee! aggr^\ apptication before thss Cour Brief facts ieading t^ petitioner herein flted a ciy perman^nt Injunction that possesslon of the petitjoner| as per the averments made 17 read with Seetion 151 construction after fHing o1 sub^@quent event th©petil proce^dings <bi^f041Ti ^i^cyl'^'fe^t ^FJI^IX ^srf^Hgn^sT Tiwari, counsei for the petitioner. Artlcte 227 of the Constitutbn of India l4ie le9ality, propriety and correctneg^ passed by the 9 Civii Judge, Ciass-2, ^Jvii'Ju^e has rejected the o^pSlcation of ^rder 6 Ruie 17 read wJth Section 151 of pidnt, ^d order shows that the lmpu9ned ord^r b j^etition is being dedded without issuing a^ b^uance of Ifie noticc i^ going to ^dings of th& suit. However, if the '^ved, they wili be at HberT^ to move <3in for modification of this ord©r. filing of 1tijs writ petition are 1+iat the 1 suit against th©rsspondents her'ein for ^e^pondent^ ^houid not interfere in the hereln. During the pendency of the suit, n the appSication fibd under Order 6 Rute ^f the C.P.C. respondents rai^d certain the sult, therefor^, on account of this |on©r^ou9ht an amendment h th©plaint @) ^SvS[ ^iWm^, t»T^<H<KS,ROW^ *11*IWI ^<TT^ 3n^CT^rRrii<fr <T^T3n^<T»*ii<p RaU^U SP/FS/2005-20,000 31T^?TWS (^cl^d^;) W^ 200 g^ITW^rfl^T W^^H th<xt whatevcr constnuctidn the suit Ifiat ^nouid b^ petitjoner sought cxn amen| the. pbint, para 7 (C) and for demoiition of ttie buiil tfiie suit and for that purp^se Court fee for mandatort However, iearned tria! C| heann9 ti1E€ Partl@s on t^ aSiowed thdt is going to yaluation, As l^e. petitioner construction which was ra| petjtioncr was wsthin hss order passad by the trsai €( In the result, the ord^r Js quashed, In view of t1n.is ord4 of. Parties are entitted <PI<<ICI)<QI «imwT^ffc^t\RI^I\ ^3lR)<l3?I^CT ^espondents h<sv@ raised after filin9 of demoijshed and for that purpose the jment for insertion of para 4-A, para-6 of b) and para 8 (G) for- mandaTory jnjunetion iing which was constructed ofter fiiing of th©petltloner hereln ai^o as^essed the ^ injunction and aiso for the damages, ourt rejected the sild applicatton after ic 9round ^at if the ^aid amendment Is ;hang€ the nature of the sult, relief and sought an amendment on account of the ssd after fiiing of tiie suit, therefore, 1+ie rsght to s@ak cmendment. The mpuQned ?urt is perverse. writ petition is allowed and the impugned r, M.(W.)P. No.3923/2005 stonds dispo^d or certifled copy of this or-der^ Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge '%•'