& ^SE^ ^ "o' -^ i^ ii S ^•0 IN THE HON'BLE CHHATTISi^RH HIGH COURT AT •<&;.'• BILASPUR W.P.NO. 1.&&8/2005 (S.B.) PETITIONERS .<) JHADURAM AGED ABOUT ^50 YEARS, S/o.LEKHRAM ^ ^^ l^ ^\^^^ ^•-^.^''^..'c ,^--::';^-1"1....^0 'y^"'0" vs. SMf. KEJA BAI AGED ABOUT 45\ YEARS, W/o.SHRI JHADURAM BOTH AGRICULTURIST, R/o.VILLAGE MADKADA, P/S KASDOL, TAHSIL BALAUDABAZAR, DISTRICT RAIPUR (C.G.) RESPONDENTS ^ ..--^w <^ ,.. B^^^'sv i\.°'*" ' ,/:1) SHRI JENIRAM DHRUV, AGED NOT KNOWN, STATION HOUSE OFFICER, P/S SARASWATI NAGAR, RAIPUR, PRESENTLY - STATION- HOUSE OFFICER, MANA CAMP RAIPUR (C.G.). :2) STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY STATE OF CHHATTISGARH DKS BHAVAN, MANTRALAYA G.E.ROAD, RAIPUR (C.G.). ,-• : 3) SAYTANARAYAN YADAV AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS :4) LAKHANLAL YADAV, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS BOTH S/O.SHRI DULRUA YADAV 3 & 4 R/o.VILLAGE MADKADA, PO CHHABDI, P/S KASDOL, TAHSIL BALAUDABAZAR, DISTRICT Rfi.IPUR (C.G.) c- »;t i' \J\ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. tf ''^- ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetition No. 1008 of2005 PETITIONERS RE8PONDENTS Jhaduram & Another Versus Shri Jeniram Dhruv & others WKFT PETTHON UMDER ARTtCLE 227 OF THE CONSTTTUnON OF INDIA fSB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aearwal, J.) Present : Shri PKC Tiwar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Shashi Bhushan, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri GD Waswani, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed 01121.01.2011) 1. By filing this petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for suiteble direction in terms ofwrit ofmandamus. 2. Orders impugned dated 22.02.2005 passed by Vth Addl. District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 59-B/03 perused, whereby the Addl. District Judge, Raipur, has closed the right to adduce evidence ofthe plaintififs. 3. Shri Tiwari and Shri Waswani, leamed counsel appearing for the parties are heard. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that although the petitioners have failed to examine their witnesses, if opportumty is not provided to the plaintififs, irreparable loss would be caused to tfae petitioners. Et!" Orders impugned perused. Definitely the plaintiffs/petitioners have not taken proper precaution and care to prosecute its case but in the present case the parties have not examined the witnesses. Considering the aforesaid facts this petition is allowed. Accordingly, orders impugned dated 22,02.2005 is hereby set aside. The court below shall provide the petitioners two opportunities for hearing/adducing/examming his witaesses aad after providing reasonable opportunity of addueing evidence to the respondent, shall deeide the case on its own merits. No order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge