^€- r-j. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDSCATURE AT BSLASPUH SCHHATTZSGARH) ^ /' WRIT PETZTION No. 3^9-^ /2005 PETZTIQNER Plaintiff RESPQNDENTS Defendant ^upa Bai agcd about 45 years W/o Shri Dhauajraj Singh, D/o Shri Sonisay Chouhan by Occupa tion Housc Hold v/ifc, R/o Village Farsabahar, Present address Lelunga Tahsil Ghargohada Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VBRSUS Gangadeen aged about 40 ycars S/o Shiv Charan Chouhan, By Occupation Service. PWD Office Pathalgaon R/o Pathalgaon Distt. Jashpur. y The State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raigarh ^RST PETSTSOK UNDER ARTSCLE 227 OF THE CONSTSTUTSON OF SNDSA XI-HC-22 W^^T^T f^TW3^T ^W^Rf^T ^Ef ^pn^Tq', ^^^(0, fG|<rll<rSys W^^iT^Ht^ STT^Tcra^ ^.^.3Z^.?/^. 22 ^ 200 3TI^?T ^^ adjouni|iients Vvitiielss Shri Pai'ag Koteoha, 0011^ Shri Dcvcsh Verma, Pan^l The petitioner prcf / 227 of the Coiistitutioii of dated 2,5,2005 passed by wliereby leaiTied Civil Judge petiuoner filcd iindcr Ordcr l^ even aiter givmg 11 addiice the evidence of certificate regardiiig iUiiess of I have heard leariied coil Peraisal of inipugned were framed aiicl tlie matter ll^ ^.13,1,2003. Thereaiter, thj: to adduce evideuce aad duiirl^ Jagaiiiiatli., Pralilad & Dhwaji|aj Le» 2,5,2005 thc petitioner Rule 1 of fae CPc fbr aMowmg Kumar, who was said to be ^i ffled. This applicatiDn was obj that siiedicai cei'tificate is not.l not sick, as he was-watchiiig ^ Cousidermg t3ie above facts tl|i by the petitioner by way of sai<|. Wqfe^ W^ff ff te^t" 5[f^K ^3Tf^T3TI^T ^isel for the petitioner. bl Law^/er for thc State, reiTed tliis petitioii under Artlcle 226 [ndis. cpiestionmg the tegality of order l.eamed Civil Judge Class-I, Raigarh has rejected the .application of the Riilc 1 of the CPC o-n the ground tliat tlie petitloner was not able to namely Pawao. Kumar the m.edical PIC said witiiess is also suspicious, nsel for the parties, oxtder shcws that on 13.12.2002 issues tA3s^ L i^fae^n fcced tor evidence of tlie pai'ues petitioner herciii took TO'O yeai's' time |g tliat geiiod he got exaiiiiaed herself, |i|aj Singh, On ihe last date of lieaiiiii i{ioved an appticatiou undcr C?rder 17 her to adduce evidencc of one Pawaii tick and a medk'al certmcate was aiso Jected by tlie defendaiite 0x1 the ground geiiLiiiie aiid witness Pawajii Kiuiiar is prograinine with him iu tue last uight. 3|ie trial court rejected the request made i<| appUcatiop——— ^) XI-HC-22 3TI^?T^T f^Tt^3TI^T ^RW^cT ^- ^ 3^T ^rpTT^PT^ ^TD^^Ko, Rl<ni^^< 3TT^i'^^ NWrtl $h^l* -^--------- ^r 200 ^^s' '23 3:TT^T?^f[W^fN' -t Further peru^al of in\ oppoiliuiities were graiit.ed i^ ex7cu affer takiag 11 adjour4 produce said Pawaii fr^umar, affidavit submitted by the subniitted by tlie petitioner i~4 Pawaa Kuniai' was found to l^le applicauon treatmeut periQd ^ wliereas, that appMcation was For the a&resaid reasoii. said tliat tlie order pas^ed b| iiTegulaiity or illegality. Thej this writ petition, saine is lialj3 accordmgty, it is dismissed at| •=hl<4ld^1^ ^ll^dT^te^^^K ^3Tf^:r3TI^T Lpugned order ^how^ tlialt sufEcient 3 tlie petitiouer to lead evicleiice^ but .nicuts the petitioner was not able to Moreover, as per triai court order tiie ^etitbner that the medical certiffcate lgardio.g iUnes^ of ^oid witD.ess n^iiiely suspicious on the/groiind tliat ia Uie ras Hieutio.ued a% 2,2'.2005 to 6.5,2005 ffled on 2.5.2005< s, I am of the opinion that it ceiinot be v the uial court sufiers froiii niateiial 'efore, I do iiot fincl aav substaiice iii ilc to be dimissed haz7tag 110 inerit aiid tiie admission stage itsclf Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (^^fe^) •^