v ^D HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HOW'BLE SHRI JUSTICB PRITINKBR DIWAKER Kl W.P. (2271 N0. 2299/2009 1. Ku. Rekha, D/o. Thakur Raia Sataami, aged about 16 years 2. Siddbarfha, S/o. Thakur Ram, aged about 14 years 3. Siddliu, S/o. Thakur Ram, a^ed about 12 years 4. Sameer, S/o. Thakur Ram, Aged aboutS years AU Tnmors Tepresented through their guacdiati moftier Rekha. Bai, aged about 38 years, W/o. Thakur Ram AU residents of ViUage Pendir, P.S. Suhela, TahsU Simga, District Raipur (CG) Vcrsus RESPONDENTS 1. Prem Bai, W/o. Dau Lal @ Dulesh Satnaaii, aged about 50 yeara, R/o. Village Beltukri, Tahsil Kharora, District Raipur (CG) 2. The CoBector, Raipur for State of Chliatttsgarh 3. Budharu, S/o. Samodhi Sataami, aged about 55 years, R/o. ViBage Padabhat, P.S. — Kharora, TahsU Kharora, District Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA Shri Pawau. KesaTwaui, counsel for the petitioners. ShriAjay Dwivedi, Dy. G.A. for the State. QRALORDER (04.05.2008) 1 m :-..»>»' u< With fhe consent of the parties, the matter is hearu finatly. Challenge in the present writ petition is to fhe order dated 23.03,2009 passed by the Fourth Civa Judge, Class- II, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 130-A/2006, by which the appUcation as filed by the petitioners under Order 18 Rute 17 of fhe Code of CivU Procedure for recalling of fhree witnesses have been rejected. Adniittedly, ftie suit ia the Court below is peBding for fhe last niore thau fhree years. The witnesses who have to be recaUed were examitied on 12.3.2007 aadwere put to inany questions iu respect offhe wffl. Since 27.02.2008, fhe matter is fixed for recording evidence of fhe defendants but tiU date tlie evidence of the defendauts has not been. recorded aiid on 26.02.2009, the application was filed iinder Order 18 Rule 17 of fhe Code of Civil Procedure. While rejecting fhis application, fhe Court would have cOnsidered all the aspects of fhe case. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the order. I find no illegaHly ia the order uapugiied. There 1s no error apparcnt on ttie face of record to interfere wifh the reasoned order passed by fhe Court below. The petition has no substaace aad is accordingly disinissed. However, fhe Court below is directed to expedite fhe proceedin.gs of the suit aad-the suit itself wffl be decided expeditiously. —\ ' ——^* ^--tpritmkerDiwakarr l,.---^ :Judge: •• :: :!v