^NBiW^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G) WRIT PBTITION 227 No. ^^ fjO OF 2010 PETITIONER:- PLANTIFFNO.l RESPQNDENTS:- DEFENDANTS ^ Bai, aged about 34 years, W/o Moralal Suiyavanshi, r/o Bodri, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tehsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G) VERSUS 1. Bundkunwar, aged about 68 years, widow/o Arjunlal, caste Suryvanshi, r/o r/o Bodri, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tehsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G) 2. Laxman Lal, aged about 30 years, S/o Arjunlal Suryavanshi, r/o I.T.I Behind S( .? Rampur Police Station, Ghorbahar, District ^$\6 Korba (C-G) 3. Om Prakash, aged about 25 years/S/o Arjunlal Suryavanshi, r/o Pathripara, Tehsil 8s District Korba (C.G) 4. Smt Savita, aged about 38 years, W/o Madan Lal Agrawal, r/o Link Road Bilaspur, Tehsil 85 District Bilaspur (C.G) 5. State of Chhattisgarh, through District Collector, Bilaspur (C.G) ^" 6. Khelan Bai, aged about 32 years, W/o Dilharan Sury^anshi, r/o Bodri, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tehsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FQR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/ CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/ORDERINTHELIKENATUREETC. RESPONDENT N0.6 PLANTIFF N0.2 <: HSOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Slnaie Bench: Hon'bte Shrl Justlce Prashant Kumar Mtshra Wrlt Petttlon (127} No. 2890 OF 2010 pamQNER RESPQNDENTS Versus Jatehia Bai Bund(<unwar and others. Shrl Ramakant Pandey, counsel for the petttloner. Shri ShaiSendra Soni, counset for respondent NoJ. Shrl K.A. Ansari, Sr. Advocate with Shri R.L. Bajpayee, counset for respondent No.4. IVItes Sangeeta Mtehra, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 5. sMone for other respondents. ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTrTUTtON OF ORALORDER (16.09.2016) The petltloner Is aggrieved by the order dated 27-04-2010, whereby the triai Gourt has closed the plaintiffs right of cross examining the defendants' wltnesses. (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would aigue that the original counsei appointed by the plaintiff was not avalteble, therefore adjoyrnment was sought which has wrongty been rejectect on the ground that on earder dates ateo adjoumments were adowed on payment of cost and cost has not been pald. (3) Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 has vehementiy argued that In view of the provteion <wntalnedin Sectlon 35 B read with Order 17 Rule 1 of C.P.C. the plaintlff te not entitled to any jndulgence and the order passed by the trial Court does 'not warrant any Interference. - \ ^ , -^- (4) From the impugned order It would be noticed that the defendant flled thelr affldavit under Order 18 Rute 4 on 25-03-2010 and on the sald the piaintifT moved an apptlcatlon under Order 13 RuSe 10 of C.PC. The matter was again fixed for cross examinatlon on 16-04-2010 and thereafter on 21-04-2010 and lastly on 27-04-2010. The triai Court has atso jmposed cost of Rs.500/- on the date of firsl adjournment and thereafter cost of Rs.1000/- on the second adjournment. (5) Consldering the fact that the suit was filed jn August, 2€N)8and It has reached to stege of evldence In March 2010, It does not appear that there te enormous detay in the proceedings before the triaS Court. 3n the Interest of justice one opportunlty can be allowed to the petltloner to cross examine the witnesses of the defendssnts who have flled thelr affldavjt under Order 18 Rute 4 of C.P.C., however thls opportunlty is aliowed to the petttloner on payment of cost of Rs.2000/- tn aridition to the cost Imposed by the trial Court. The entire amount of cost shali be by the petltloner to the contesting defendant on the of cross examination. The trial Court shall ftx a date for the said purpose and thereafter proceed to decide the suit. The partles are directed to appear before the trial Court on the ne>rt date of hearing flxed foefore the trial Court. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge