IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR IC.G.l W.P. No. '2^^/-46. /2003 y ^-{^ PETITIONER: .-••• ..•• .'4^ ^0>^§^" _^^--" o-r.SP"" ^^1. 'r^A--' y /. Goverdhan das aged-about 60 Year's s/o late Ftibiyamal Rawlani (sindhi) c/o shive sh -akatielecta-icles chatrapati shivaji chok,Dhamtari Tha- 8s Dist. Dhamtari (C. G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT ^. ^ ^ y- Dhilarain aged 50 years S/0 Mevalal khubchandani sindhi) R/0 ward no. 2 Nainpur and pooja agarbatti works budhwari bazaar Nainpur thana SE Tha. Nainpur Dist. Mandla (M.P.) Ranibai aged 48 years jauje DhUaram khubchandani (sindhi) Sangeeta aged 24 years D/o Dhilaram Sanjay aged22 year S/0 Dhilarain khubchandani (sindhi) Sunil aged 20 S/0 Dhilaram khubchandani (sindhi) Sushil aged 18 years S/0 Dhflarain khubchandani (sindhi) AU R/0 word no. 2 nainpur and pooja agarbatti works budhawari bazaar Tha. Nainpur Dist. Mandla (M.P.) Kishan chand aged 42-year bhiman das chandarii R/0 ward no. 2 Nainpur i $ 11. and bhiinanchand clo_fh marchant budhwari bazaar Nainpur ku. Priya D/0 kishanchand chandani (suidhi) aged 19 years R/0 ward no. 2 Nainpur and bhiraandas cloth merchant budhawari bazaar Nainpur bhanibai W/0 late. Ashok kumar aged 48 years R/0 ward no. 2 Nainpur Dist. Mandla Atmaram alias Aart S/0 Asudaml Jhamnani (sindhi) R/Q Madhavnagar Rampuri Carap Amravati Dist.Amravati(maharastra) I / PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1 <A^,^,^ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra PETITIONER RESR3NDENTS WritPetitionNo.2448/2003 Goverdhandas Versus Dtltlaram and others. ShriAnilPandey.counselfbrthepetitioner. None for the r^pondents. WRIT PETmONUNDERARTICLE 2270F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (15.12.2010) Learned trial Court, bythe impugned order, has closed the plaintiffs rightto lead evidence. (2) Shri Anil Pandey.leamed counsel forthe petitioner would submit that the witnesses were not present in spite of payment of process fee and issuance of summons, therefore the plaintiff could not have been hekt responsibte Tor the absence of the witnesses and the teamed trial Court has committed gross illeflality by closing his right to tead ewdence. (3) On a reading ofthe impugned order it would appear that the plaintiff paid the process fee on 21/02/2003 and 29/04/2003 for keeping his witnesses present. Affidavite ofsomeofthe witnesses were submitted under Order 18 Rule 4 of C.P.C.and the summons issued to another witness Mukesh Kumar was returned un-served. Learned trial Court appeare to have been impressed bythe factthat since threeopportunities have already been granted, no further opportunity should be allowed to the plaintiff. (4) In the opinion of this Court, since the summons issued to the witnesses were un-served, at teast for those wttnesses.the plaintiffcould not tflNUi NI ICi beblamedfortheirnon-appearance.Keepinginviewtheentiretyofthefacts and circumstances ofthe case, the plaintiff needs one opportunity to prove his case by producing his witnesses subject however to payment of cost of Rs.1 ,(XK)/- to the defendants. (5) ConsequenUy, it is directed that on the petitioner's paying cost of Rs.1,000/- to ttie defendants, within a period of four weeks from today and producing his enfire witnesses in one single dayfortheir examination on a date to be fbeed by the trial Court, the plaintiff shall beallowed to lead evidence of his remaining witnesses. •> (6) The instant petition succeeds and is ayowedjn ffie above terms. Sd//- PrashantKumar Mishra Judge )<—