Chhattisgarh High Court
WP227/922/2013 of Siyamber Vs Dr. Rajeshwari Tripathi and Ors. on 20 December 2013
C,£? IN THE HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR /0 A § WRIT PETITION (227) NO.9......L...... [2013 @ M} PETITIONER Siyamber, S/o Jagmohan, aged Piaintiff about 45 years, Caste — Panika, m (my 9237439 R/o Surajpur ‘Mohalla Nawapara, PoliceSand Tahsil Surajpur,
~f[l]*wff;y\£1IN THE HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
C,£?/0 A
WRIT PETITION (227) NO.9......L[......][2013&‘@M}w PETITIONERPiaintiff Siyamber, S/o Jagmohan, aged—about45years,CastePanika,‘MohallaR/oSurajpurNawapara,PoliceSandTahsilSurajpur,CivilandRevenueDistrictSurajpur(CG‘)
m (my[9237439].................../”.%../.:2].;§3‘
a
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS1.Defendants2.3.4.
Dr. Rajeshwari Tripathi,
D/oSatyanarayan,agedabout 55years,[Caste][ —][ Bramhan,]Sudeshwari,D/oSatyanarayan,—years,[Caste][ —][ Bramhan,]Sudeshwari,D/oSatyanarayan,—agedaboutSOyears,CasteBramhan,Madanmohan,S/oSatyanarayan,—Bramhan,Madanmohan,S/oSatyanarayan,—agedabout45years,CasteBramhan,Bramhan, Sharad, S/o Ramashankar Tripathi,--agedabout35years,CasteBramhan,Bramhan, AiiareR/oAmbilapur,P.S.andTahsiiAmbikapur,CiviiandRevenue District Surguja (C.G.)State of Chhattisgarh,TahsiiAmbikapur,CiviiandRevenue District Surguja (C.G.)State of Chhattisgarh, 5‘
Through:theCollector,Surguja(Ambikapur)[Chhattisgarh.]
WRIT PETITEON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA
1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER
As mentioned above in the cause title.
§
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker PETITIONERPlaintiff W.P. (227) No.922 of 2013
Siyamber
Page 1 of 2
VERSUS
RESPONDENTSDefendants
Dr. Rajeshwari Tripathi and others
Present:
Shri A.K. Shukla, counsel for the petitioner‘Shri V. Goverdhan, Panel Lawyer for the State.
O R D E RK(20.12.2013)
Heard on admission.
02. Challengein thepresentpetitionfiledunder Article 227of theConstitutionof Indiais to the order dated 2.12.2013 (AnnexureP/1)‘wherebytheCourtbelowhaspartlyallowedtheamendmentapplication filed by the petitioner/plaintiff.
03. While passing the order impugned,it has been observed by theCourt below that certain amendments sought for by the piaintiff inhispiaint[are]in the nature of reply to the counter claim preferred by thedefendants and the same can not be allowed to be made particularlywhenrightof thepiaintifftotilereplytothecounterclaimofthedefendants has not been closed. Thus the Court below consideringallthe aspects of the matter partly allowed the amendment application ofthe plaintiff.
04. From perusal of the order impugned and the material on record,this Courtis of the considered View that the order impugned allowingtheamendmentapplicationoftheplaintiffinpartsuffersfromnothis Courtis of the considered View that the order impugned allowingtheamendmentapplicationoftheplaintiffinpartsuffersfromnoillegality or perversity andas such,warrants nointerferencebythisCourtinexerciseof powersunder Article 227of theConstitutionofCourtinexerciseof powersunder Article 227of theConstitutionofIndia.Thepetitionbeingsansmeritsdeservestobeandis,accordingly, dismissed in Iimine.accordingly, dismissed in Iimine.
Sdl—
Pritinker[Diwakar]
Judge
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…