1 2025:CGHC:43811 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 890 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sushila Devi Chimnani W/o Shri Trilokchand Chimnani Aged About 74 Years R/o Idgahbhata, Lakhe Nagar, Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Anil Kumar Chimnani S/o Shri Trilokchand Chimnani Aged About 44 Years R/o Idgahbhata, Lakhe Nagar, Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Raipur Development Authority, Through The Chief Executive Officer, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bank Of Baroda A Banking Company Duly Incorporated Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Banking Companies (Acquisition And Transfer Of Undertakings) Act. Inter-Alia Amongst Other Branches A Branch Office At Mahavir Goshala Premises, Moudhapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - M/s Medico Surgical Enterprises Through Shri Prakash Vatyani, S/o Late Chandrapal Wadhwa (Vatyani), B-9, Suman Complex, Near Madhuvan Hotel, Sadar Bazaar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Kanta Devi Wd/o Late Chandrapal Wadhwa Aged About 60 Years R/o Ravigram, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Prakash Wadhwa S/o Late Chandrapal Wadhwa Aged About 44 Years R/o Ravigram, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Mahesh Wadhwa S/o Late Chandrapal Wadhwa R/o Ravigram, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.08.30 10:28:26 +0530 2 For Applicants : Mr. Chakresh Tiwari, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 29/08/2025 1) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that this Court in WPC No. 3130 of 2018 vide order dated 21.02.2024, allowed the amendment application and granted seven working days’ time to the petitioners therein to carry out the amendment but said order could not be complied and due to peremptory order, petition was dismissed. He further submits that amendment could not be incorporated as petitioner’s husband i.e. power of attorney holder underwent knee surgery and there was clerical error, therefore order dated 21.02.2024 could not be complied with. He prays to restore the petition. 2) Heard. 3) Evidently, amendment application was allowed vide order dated 21.02.2024 and petitioners were directed to carry out the amendment within period of seven working days. In this application, applicants have assigned the reason with regard to knee surgery of petitioner’s husband i.e. power of attorney holder but the amendment was to be carried out by the counsel for the petitioners. It is further pleaded that there was some clerical error but I am unable to understand what clerical error erupted. 3 4) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I am not convinced with the reasons assigned in the application. Consequently, this application is hereby rejected. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya