THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) N0. /2011 PETITIONER: Defendantno. 1 RESPONDENTS: Plaintiff -\^^"'l 'y... .-••* He.^^^f^^--- -^T.I-1-1^""" Defendant no. 2 2. Ramroop S/o Late Ramprasad aged about 50 years, Caste Sahu, R/o Village Rampur, Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria (C.G.) VERSUS Mithilesh Kumar S/o Late Pradeep Sahu, aged about 19 years, Occupation- Student, R/o Village Rampur, Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria (C.G.) Kalawati sahu Ex-W/o Late Pradeep Sahu, aged about 40 years, W/o Banjarram, R/o Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Koria, Baikunthpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE2270F CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As mentioned in the cause title above. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As mentioned in the cause title above. 3. PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER FS1 IMPUGNED AGAINSTWHICH PETITION IS MADE. Def No. 3 ^ ^8 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (221) No. 66 of2011 PETITIONER RE8PONDENTS : Ramroop Versus Mithilesh Kumar & Others WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF DslDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwa), J.) Present : Shri DN Prajapati, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri GD Waswani, Govt. Advocate for the State. QRALORDER (Passed on 10.01.2011) 1. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 02.12.2010, passed by the IInd Civil Judge Class I, Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea, in Civil Suit No. 52-A/08, whereby and whereunder the petitioner's application filed under Sections 151 and 152 of CPC for modification ofthe orders dated 20.09.10 & 24.09.10 and also for permitting him to lead evidence has been rejected. 2. The facts, as projected by the petitioner is that the case was fixed for petitioner's evidence on 16.09.10. On that day, the case was adjoumed due to death of father ofjunior counsel Sneha Singh and the case was fixed for petitioner's evidence on 20.09.10. On 20.09.10 the petitioner filed an afEdavit ofwitness Ramkripal Sahu under Order 18 Rule 4 ofCPC but the same was rejected by the trial court on an objection raised by the plaintiff and the case was fixed ^for cross examination ofdefence witnesses on 24.09.10. By way of .€3 /^•••^ \ '^ ^sa.s^ f'^ ^9 application under Section 151 and 152 ofCPC, the petilioner has drawn attention ofthe court regarding mistake occurred in the order dated 20.09.10 but his application was also rejected vide impugned order. I have gone through order dated 16.09.10 by which the trial court fixed the case on 20.09.10 for petitioner's evidence but it appears that inadvertently the afGdavit filed by the petitioner on 20.09.10 has been rejected although the case was fixed for that purpose, therefQre, order dated 20.09.10 aiid 02.12.10 are not sustainable in law so far as rejection of afGdavit of witness of petitioner is concerned and to that extent the orders impugned dated 20.09.10 & 02.12.10 are set aside. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The trial court shall admit the above ajBRdavit filed under Order 18 Rule 4 ofCPC and fix the case within a period ofone month from today for cross examination of the petitioner's witness whose affidavit has been filed by the petitioner on 20.09.10 and tfiereafter shall proceed with the matter on its own merits in accordance with law. No order asto costs. 5. Since this petition is heard in tfae absence of respondents, they are free to move with an appropriate application, ifaggnsved. No order Sahu asto costs. Sd//- N.K. Agrawal Judge