-^^ M IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) M.C.C. N0. S<T3- /2011 APPELLANT ^ ^' ^ uy ^^;v\ 'v^" ^.^ . ^ "V ^-v& RESPONDENTS VERSUS h»» Y Goverdhan Das, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Fbiyamal Rawlanji (Sindhi) C/o Shiv Shakti Electricles Chatrapati Shiva Ji Chowk, Dhaintari, Tahsil & Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) Dhilaram aged about 50 years, S/o Mevalal Khubchandani (Sindhi) R/o ward nho. 2 Nainpur and Pooja Agarbatti works budhwari baza.ar Nainpur Thana & Tahsi Nainpur, Distt. Mandla (M.P.) Ranibai aged about 485 yeasrs, Juje Dhilaram Khubchandani (Sindhi) Sangeeta aged 24 years, D/o Dhilaram. Sanjay aged 22 years, S/o Dhilararn Khubchandani (sindhi) Sunil aged 20 years, S/o Dhilaram Khubchandani (sindhi) Sushil aged 18 years, S/o T^ ^ Dhilaram Khubchandani (sindhi) All R/o Ward No. 2 Nainpur and Pooja Agarbatti Works Budhwari Bazaar Tha. Nainpur, Distt. Mandla (M.P.) 7. Kishan Chand aged 42 years, Bhiman Das Chandani, R/o ward no. 2 Nainpur and Bhimanchandani cloth marchant Budhwari Baza.ar Nainpur. 8. Ku. Priya D/o Kishanchand Chandani (sindhi) aged 19 years, R/o ward no. 2 Nainpur and Bhimandas cloth merchant Budhwarni Bazaar Nainpur. 9. Bhanbai W/o late Ashok Kumar aged 48 years, R/o Ward No. 2 Nainpur Distt. Mandla 10. Atmaram alias Aart S/o Asudaml Jhamnani (sindhi) R/o Madhavanagar Rampuri Camp Amravati Distt. Amravati (Maharashtra) \< > ^ APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2010 PASSED IN W.P. N0. 2448/2003 - ? j^s:"^ /y/^^ ^ ^~^f ^wm^, W^\w^) _,_ . <A^G.6' N11W g^^iq^ '" ' ' •1^^ ^OQ y^[ ^T^ (^tj^^) l^ a^^Tt^hF 'pfsrr g^?r ^jcb WtWt ^ft^r 3?t^r I:/'. ii' Hon*ble Shri Prashant Kumar 25.07JiOll Shri Anil Pandey, counsel f(| On 15/12/2010 this court affording one chance to produce trial court was set aside in th< petitioner to pay cost ofRs.1000/ offour weeks fi-om 15/12/2010 ai| one single day for fheir examinati^n court. Now the present MCC has| deposit cost ofRs.1000/- on the receive information within four w| After passirig of the ordef months have elapsed and yet the is making a prayer for extension cjl In view of the fact that if 1|he evidence, he may suffer adversel time allowed for producing en^ ^extended by farther three weeksj iflfce wqteN'm^f i? ^f-(N^R ^^ft^Wt^T i|Hshra,J. |>r the applicant. ^ltewed the petitioner's prayer for tl|e entire evidence. The order ofthe interest of justice directing the 4- to the defendants within a period [d producing his entire witnesses in on a date to be fixed by the trial Ibeen filed for extension of time to tround that fhe petitioner could not seks. on 15/12/2010 more than seven jpetitioner has not paid the cost and time. petitioner is not allowed to lead y in the suit, it is directed that th© re witnesses in one single day is subject however to tfie petitioner 3?n^r^T^jch 'W^ ^TT^T st»*ii<ft ^J^ '3~5£[ ^|<qi<nq, ®Tti<-|<|^,[®t<'||,L|^ ^^^.37^^ *<i*iCTtCT»*<K(»""*""""""'"""'""""'""" "'"'"""^2o<y ^?T ^S^! (yii^^) "FCTW ^f^a 3TT^[ paying an additional cost of ^. the said period ofthree weeks. | Ifthe cost is not deposit^d by thi this court will loose its efficacj continue with the hearing oftlji granted any opportunity to lea(j MCC stands disposed ojf lLs.5000/- to the opposite party within cni<it<vi<il»t ^«<i<A^f f^l<l <F^^i< ^)'3TRPT3?T^ sd by the said time the order passed by and the trial court shall be entitled to ie suit as ifthe petitioner has not been evidence. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge -^,^4.^ ^^^sr»n^?,^^Ri^t^^—FS/140—2/20t 1—1,50,000,