H COURT OF CHHATTES6 v. Amora
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Plaintiff Aged about 63 years, Occupation- ,/fC^ ^fl-^ i ft No.«<h—"*«—w—i PresentedbyShri Dated...."...—••«*"• Agriculturist, R/o Village Hariharpur, P.S. & Tahsil Pratappur, Distt. Surajpur (C.G.) Civil & Revenue bistrict Surajpur (C.6.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS
Amora, S/o Moharsai, caste 6ond, ^v aged about 49 years,
Amirsai, S/o Moharsai, caste 6ond, aged about 44 years,
Ravi Shanker S/o Moharsai, caste 6ond, aged about 34years,
Moharsai, S/o Dheersai, 6ond, aged about 69 years,
Rameshwar S/o Shanker Caste Gond, 7
Bheekhram, S/o Sahdeo, Gond, No. 1 to 4 are R/o Village Chikni, P.S.. Ramkota, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.6.) ^ No. 5 & 6 are R/o Parmeshwarpur, P.S. Pratappur, Tahsil Pratappur, Distt. Surajpur (C.6.) fr- StaJ-e ai c-hhottjs^vr^, j-hy^k. CcJJfC/vr.S^ja^ ^»'i» 'a ^s'ia'fS ^_- 7 WRTT PETTTCON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTETUTCON OF INMA ^r XI-HC—7S •g-sy ^iiqi<?Tq, ^tflyis, 'f^rray ^.....W.'.L^.^.:^....^. sn^ •'WK (•^13^1) S[I^I3;I'fe;)W ^qi3?R?igR •Ftmwgfet sii^! <*wii')<il-< 'WRlf 4 feiA ^fSl^IT ^sifwisn^?! S.B.: HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. PftlTINKER DIWAKER 06.11.2013 ShriRahulMishra, counse for the petitioner. Shri Chahdresh Shrivastavja, PL for the State. Heard on admission. 1 Challenge in the present! petition is to the order dated ap|plication
19.09.2013 whereby petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 dismissed, While dismissing the IRule 17 of the CPC has been ^pplication it has been held by for are not very the trial- court thal the amendn|ents sought specifiCidear and not required. Counsel for the petitioner f^irly admits that the evidence of ^n completed and the suit is at both the parties have already be the final stage. 1 find no illegality or per(/ersity in the order impugned :;ourt under Article 227 of the warranting interference by this 1 Constitution of India. The petit deserves to be and is, accordinglj on is sans merits, the same dismissed in limine. 'S
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.