/ -^ c (~ . ,0' -' .1^'''''" 's-s IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT'BILASPUR WRIT PETmON NEii; 5;/:2006 PETITIONER ^" PLAINTIFF Badri Vishal S/o Ramjilal Gupta Aged about 53 years, ..-•'\^.--''~ :..' ilo.»*''\u'' ..••*' Occupation - Culti^ation, ^yy *,;**;^.:'' .•••' ^ ^C^' R/o Village- Bhupdevpur, /'.-.xc^/"' -•'-.'.:. --., ^^ ^y^'" ^^ ^" Tah- Kharsia,,Disrtt- Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT DEFENDANT 1) Chain Singh S/o Late Sri ,i:CU::;i: ..^..; '-':.. ' ' Singh Patel Aged about 59 years By caste -Agharia, Ramjilal S/o Late Sri Pyarelal Aged about 76 years Upendra Lal S/o Late Sri Ramjilal Gupta Aged about 49 afr. years, Occupation Agriculturai. 4) Madhusudan S/o Late Sri ta Aged about 47 a^- years, Occupation- AgriculturW ^. . 5)::E^,.y'<3iiUdamani^ @ Laxmi:; Nidhi S/o Ramjilal Aged about 43 years <g^. Occupation Agriculur^ All are Resident of Village Bhupdeopur, Tahsil - Kharsia, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 6) State of Chhattisgarh Through : Collector Raigarh (C.G.) W^IT PETITIONUNDER ARTICLE 22^ OF THE CONSTITUTIQN OF^ INDIA J-OR^ mVOKING THE SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION The petitioner named above respectfully submits the particulars of the petition as under: XI-HC-78 tITRCfT aiNlch •sss-^W^, ^Ti1tijl<i, Rirtiuy . . (J..'^E=?..'^S-SA W1[ 200& gn^rwf^rw cW 311^1 shXI* w^\w* (l^3g^?T) SRrreKgfeTsn^i' <t>wF<-i.sn-< KWdTfffe^ <Pi^i< ^sri^iTsn^r 19-6-2006 When the matter is called No representation is made. Heard Mr. Sumesh Baj4 respondent No.6. Perused the petition. The instant writ petition Constitution of India, questionin^ order dated 27-2-2006 passed yt, none present on behalf of the petitioner. ij, Government Advocate for the State/ has been filed under Article 227 of the legality, propriety and correctness of the [sy the 1 Civil Judge, Class-ll, Raigarh, the case for recording the evidenc whereby he rejected the prayer ijif the plaintifffpetitioner for adjournment of e of his witness. I have perused the impugn|ed order. The impugned order shows that on 27-2-20W the matter was fixe^ for plaintiffs evidence and an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of ths C.p.C. was fiied on behalf of the petitioner/ plaintiff for cteferment of the matt^r for recording the evidence of witness on account of the fact that the witne^s was sick. Learned Court observed that no medical certificatewas filed in ^upport ofthe application. Even oiherwise, the matter .was fixed for plaintifFsj evidence on several dates i.e. 4-8-2004, 24-8-2004, 10-9-2004, 11-3-200? to the petitioner to adduce ©viden was not abte to produce the wit , 23-3-2005 & 9-5-2005, even then, the petitioner was not able to adduce ^vidence, thereafter, opportunity was given ce and even on 27-2-20C®,the petitioner |iess and he sought for adjournment on medical ground without submitting |he medical proof. Therefore, the order passejd by the learned Civil Judge cannot be termed to be unjustifled, illegal or 6fthe C.P.C. the trial is required arbitrary. As per the amended provisions to be proceededexpeditiously and the above facts show that the petitior|er/ plaintiff was not prosecuting his case XI-HC-78 'ssf -^ww^, »Tfl<ri(S,Isiowy O.'-P.^s-go HI*IWI aiw^i ^ 200 ^ Sli^sfi 4aqi (*l?ll3's««eT) sn^Tqii^iN; craTsn^TsbKi* Soma ^ ^araTflfStTan^T ^- circitnstances. the trial Court has not committed fe the impugned order. th^refore, liable to be dismissed and it is with due diligence. In the circ+nstances, any jurisdictiona! error by passi.^; Th° writ petition is accordingly.dismissed on merit^. Consequently, M.(W.)P.^o.1935/2006 stands disposed of. tii<itc'i<n-i iitfiaT?fte^<Ri'wi< ^3lf^TT3I1^T f^ ^^ > So /«y