HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR W.P.fC) No.940/2008 PETITIONER/ PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT/ DEFENDANTS Bajrang Lal Mittal, S/o late Soniram, aged about 52 years, Occupation Service, Resident of Hatri Chowk,=Raigarh (G.G.) Versus 1 Radheshyam, S/o late Soniram aged about 61 years, Occupation Nottiing, resident of Gaddi Chowk, Palace Road, Raigarh (C.G.) 2 Smt. Mahadei, Widow of late Soniram, aged about 81 years, Occupation Nothing, resident of Gaddi Chowk, Palace Road, Raigarh (C.G.) (wrongly mentioned in the order as MP) 3 Smt. Uma Gupta, Wife of Om Prakash Gupta, aged about 56 years; Occupation Nothing, resident of Pankaj Building, Indira Coiony, Nasik (M.H.) 4 Smt. Kanta Agrawai, Widow of Radheshyam Agrawat, aged about 47 years, Occupation Nothing, resident of Kirodimal Colony, Raigarh (C.G.) 5 Smt. Sita Agrawat, Wife of Vinod Kumar Agrawai, aged about 43 yeare, Occupation Nothing, resident af Village Putkapuri, P.0. Gorra, Tahsi! and District Raigarh (C.G.) 6 Anguri, Wife of Radheshyam, aged about 58 years, resident of Gaddi Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) 7 Arvind Kumar S/o Radheshyam aged about 29 years, resident of Gaddi Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsii and District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF Appearance: Smt. Hamida Siddique, Counsel forthe ORAL ORDER .'^f '\'1' ^ ^a-^—- W.P.(C)No.940/200^ fsSSSSf r^^r^-' Shyna This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 18/1/2008 passed by the District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 5-A/2002, whereby, the iearned District Judge, after granting an adjournment to the plaintiff for adducing his evidence, has fixed the case for p!aintiffs evidence on 3/3/2008. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that afEer decision of the preiiminary issues No.4, 5, 8 &9, a Review Petition was flied by the plaintiff on 17/9/2007 and a prayer was made for decision of thesaid Review Petition, but the petition has been kept in abeyance and the matter has been fixed for plaintiff's evidence. The order passed on preliminary issues No. 4, 5, 8 &9 has been placedon record (Annexure P/5). She makes a limited prayer that before commencement of the plaintiff's evidence, the concerned Court may be directed to dispose of the Review Petition filed bythe plaintiff on 17/9/2007. I have gone through the contents of the order dated 14.8.2007 and have also perused the contents of the Review Petition filed by the petitioner. There does not appear to be any harm, if it is directed that before commencement of the evidence on 3/3/2008, the triat Court shall dispose ofthe Review Petition filect bythe petitioner on 17/9/2007. Therefore, this petition is disposed of with a directton that before taking evidence on 3/3/2008, the trial Court shal! dispose of the Review Petltion filed by the petitioner, as according to iearned counsel for the petitioner, the same has not been disposed ofso far. ST so required, the trial Court may fix an interim date, by informing the counsel for the parties, prior to 3/3/2008 and after disposal of the Review Petition, the Court may not change the date of evidence, which has been fixed as 3/3/2008. It is made clear that this order is being passed ex-parte, therefore, if the opposite party feels aggrieved with the order, they shall have an opportunity to come to this Court in accordance with taw. the above observations, this petition stands finatly disposed of. ^L Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge