^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) N0. ^^\ /201P PETETIONER/ PLAINTIFF ^\f^<"'\.. »•»' ^ ^s^"^^" ^"^i^^ ^ ^^ <^" RESPONbENTS/ DEFENDANTS \^^^^^^ ^ is?t^"%. p-f.7\ .1. ^ l.: b^^tMT&'l ^^^^f^ j' u ^f'/ t^/ ^!-':^.. ... ^:^'^ '•'•'^^^^^ Smt. Urmila Bai Pansari, W/o Shn' Parmanand Pansan', aged about 66 years, R/o Bramhan para, Ward No. 33, Near Banstaal, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. r Harjeet Singh, S/o Buddh Singh Bhatiya, R/o Purana Ganj Chowk, Bakholi Road, Trilok Sadan, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.O.) 2.' Gulab Pansari, S/o Parmanand Pansari, R/o Bramhanpara, Ward N0. 33, Near Banstaal, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Collector, Rajanandgaon, Oistrict Rajanandgaon (.C.G.) 4. Sub Registrar, Rajnandgaon, bistt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETCTION UNbER ARTCCLE 227 OF THE CONSTCTUTCON OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) No. 5651/2010 PETITIONER Smt. Urmila Bai Pansari Versus RESPOND^NTS Harjeet Singh and others l^ SB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate, for petitioner. Shri G.D. Wasvani, Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 3 and 4. None appears for respondents No. 1 and 2. ORALORDER (21-1-2011) 1. The order dated 30-7-2010 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No. 7-A/2010 whereby petitioner's application (number as I.A. No. 6 before the court below) for cross-examining deponent Ashok Kumar Jain was dismissed on the ground that the defendant has already filed other documents and the signature can be compared from those documents regarding sale deed. 2. It appears that before deciding I.A. No. 6 learned trial Court has not considered the provisions contained in Order 19 Rule 2 of C.P.C. and rejected the application. As per Order 19 Rule 2 of C.P.C., upon any application of the either party, the court may order attendance of deponent for cross-examination, whose affidavit has been filed by either party. 3. Therefore, the order being not sustainable in law deser^es to be and is hereby set aside to the extent of I.A. No. 6 and the matter is remitted back to the trial court. The trial Court shall hear the matter in the light of provisions contained in Order 19 Rule 2 of C.P.C and then pass order in accordance with law. 4. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge