<z-a PSTITIONBR: Plaintiff: Athna Rain Bhagat, son ofjohna KtcUJLl JLJllca^ct L, "/V.a^ "K/^t-?^ ^^ C^CUL di'^^U.t ^\Jt Respondents: fdefendaists) Versus 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. years, caste Uraon, residence viilage Bhitgaia., Talisil Bagicha, Districf Jashpiir, Chhattisgarh. Brajkishore, son of Bontfas, aged about 35 years Sudhir soii of Bonifas, aged about 25 years. Mu. Jusfina vrife of Boni Fas, aged about 60 yeai^ Vijay Xaxa, son ofNarjoo Anup Xaxa, son of Narjoo Pramod Xaxa, son of Narjoo Vipin Xaxa, son ofNaijoo Viaod son of Parditiand, aged about 30 vears. Vinis son of Fardiaaad, aged about 24 years. AU belongs to caste Uraon, serial no. 1 to 7 residence of viUape Betra, serial 110. 8 to 9 residence of vfllage Sutri, Tatisfl Bagicha, Distiict Jashpur, Chliattisgarb.. Mtate ot CtitiattisgarlL, 'rtu-oug& CoBector, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chtiatdsgarh. (S . T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate tbr the petitioner. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, P.L. forthe State/respondent No. 10. Respondents No. 1 to 9 not noticed. 3. (Passedoa 18/11/2011) By ttils petition under Article 227 of the Constitutiou of India petitioner has chaUenged the legality aiid propriety of the order dated 15/7/2011 passed by Civil Judge Class-2, Bagicha, District Jashpur in civil suit No. 4A/2009 whereby right to adduced CVideuce of plaiatifl' bas been closed by tlie trial Court. Mr, Harish Khuntiya, Advocate for the petitioner & Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, P.L. for fhe State/respondent No. 10 are heard. Leamed counsel for ffae petitioner submits that on account of absence ofcoun.sel for the plamtiff, plaintiffwas not in position to examine his witnesses aiid after last chaace plaintiff has again •^- t. „ if i^ S tf"^'.an.ffy ^ .4. prayed for adjouminent which has been denied and right to adduce evidence of plaintiffbas beenclosed. Leamed couusel 4br ftie petitioner further subniits fhat if opportunity of adducing evidence has not given to the plaintiff ffaen plaintiffjciay be serious prejudice. Order uiipugned, copy of the plaint and other docuinents perused. Sufficient opportunity has been given by the Court to petitioner for adduciag his evidence even last cbance was given but plaiatiff has failed to exaniine the witaesses, tliis clearly shows tliat plaiutifF/petitioner was not serious before ttie Coiirt for prosecution of his case but if opportunity is not provided to the plaintiff then UTeparable loss inay be caused to fhe plauitifF, consequently, one opportunity would be just to the plaintiffi Order dated 15/7/201l has been challenged by this petitioner/plauitiff on 11/11/2011 after lapse of 4 inonth fhis again shows reluctancy of the plaiatiff therefore opportunity with heavy cost would be necessaiy. Issuaace of notice to respondents No. 1 to 9 aad observance of procedural law would be futile exercise. Consequently, petitioner is aUowed. Order closing opportunity of adducing evideace of plaintiff/petitioner is quashed subject to pa;Tnent of cost of Rs. 4,000/- to the respondents No. 1 to 9 withia 15 days froin today before the trial Coiirt; if cost is paid within stipulated tiiae then Coiirt shall provide one opportunity of adducing evidence to tbe plaiatiff that too within 30 days froxn today and proceed further to decide the case a&esh. Plauitiff/petitioner is at liberty to exanune atl his witnesses on aforesakl date provided bv the Court. No order as to costs. Interun application stands disposed of. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge ^ ^