4 ^:^ ; ^^ ' ., 6in0f8 Eienfijii IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR(C.G.) W.P . N0. 2^':h3 /2005 PETITIONER Goutam Prasad, S/o. Hiraram Pradhan, aged about 47 years, R/o.Khairpur, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS r^ t'"^ ^ Lj- Prabhashankar S/o. Ganpati, Kolta, aged about 40 years Resident of Khairpur, Dist. Raigarh (C.G.) 2) Alok Kumar, S/o. Gautam Prasad, aged about 19 years, R/o. Khairpur, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) WRJTPETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 /227_OF THE CONSTITUTION OP INDIA. FOR ISSUNCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS / ORDERS AND DIRECTION 3"^-^ww^, ®Tily'i(o,fsiciK-fy ....^.s^±^... 5- SIi^IWfefR? ffSiitIW ^ ^ s.- WTOR'gfNsiiiw Gi,PRJ—PS/350—12/2000—50,000. 31.1.2005 Shri Ashish Gupta, counsel fij The pstitioner has preferrei the order dated 14.12.2004, wher^ Section 151 of 1+ie C.P.C. was rejec-| Brief facta leading to fiiing Kumar, respondent No.2 herein, fil through his mother for- decldrati^n that suit the petitioner herein, respondent No.2 herein and plain^ Perusa! of the order sheet datedl closed his svidence, ttiereafter, -ijhi eyidence, and on that day counsei patitioner were pr-esent and the defendants. On thaf day, counse! and the mcrtter was fixed for 16.10.2004, anappiication was mo' i.e. defendant No.7 in ?he or!'gin4 that defendant No.7, the petitioj evidence. for proving certdn docuji But after some time on the sah appeai'CGi and rosaod objoctipn thai ^i<<[<;l<i1TT ''TF^ff^ ^S^t if^^K ^r sifipr sni^r |r The petition&r. 1 this writ petitiori being a9grievsd by ^by tha petitioner's application under (•ed by the leorned Court beiow. Ipf this wr-i't petition are that one Alok ^d a suit agajnst S respondents, in all, of the will as nul! and void, and in »ho is none else than the father of tiff in the sujt, was defendant No.7. 14.10.2004 reveals that the piaintiff he mat+er was fixed for defendants' for defendant No.2 and 1+is present uit wss sx-pssrte agair.st the remaining For ths defendants ciossd hisevidence inal ar9uments on 16.10.2004. On 'ed on behaif of ihe petitioner herein suit, who is fo.ther of the plaintirf, ier- herein, wants to adduce his own Rents. ond ttiat was allowed ex-pai'te. ne dey, counsel for defendant. No.2 sljit ;epy of 1+ie gppficatior1 ^"c] ""+ sen •-'^'- "s^ '^WM^I, ^tWTS, fs«niyy,< ..y.!..£?.&.^.j... an^r 1raw (T^^(?) TOiiw^ifttrstiin ~ii <»l<<[CT<il-? 111CT tf feSt TplIt^K ^ sTRin 3n^?r served on him and he wants to file ileply of the same, On +he praysr of counsei for defendant No.2 copy w^is served and the mattet' was fixed for hearing on the application on parties, the appiication of defendorjt No.7 wo.s rejected on the ground that he filed an applicGtion To addu< documents, but defendant No-7 in je eyidence in prder to prove certain his written statement has aiready ddmitted the plcint and no'docuir^ent has been fiied on his behatf, therefore his evidence is not nece^sary. Thereafter, defendant No.7 againstthis order moved an applica statinq that the trial Court was (•ion under Section 151 of the C.P.C, not entitted to reyiew its order. I have heard learned couns question of admission. Perusai of the order dated shows that no iilegality or !rre9ularf Court for the reason that in tH rt defendants No.2 <S 7 on 14" Octol adduce any evidence, moreover, he No.2 hereln being father cf respond] defendant No.7 moved an applicatio 18.10.2004, and after hearing 1+ie therefore, he may be aliowed to ad^ue®his evidenc®,and 1+ie same was also rejected by the tr-iaf Court. for the petitioner' he.re.in on the 116.10.2004 and the impugned ordei ty has been committed by 1+ie trial e first instance, counsei for the ?er, 2004, themssiyes chose nor To sdtnitted the piaint of respondent int No.2. Ther'eafTer/on 16,10.2004 and that appiication was cliowed in .thp. nhfl«""-nnf caunsal for de-fendoaht No.2. and immediateiv on •i+ie sams Gt. I>RJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000. '^ :>a-HG—7i •sv^i^^nv 'S'ff SV^I WV £»ooma 7Sf ^TTqRW, ^ftWT?, felTBy te.y.^^^, ^- ^gTOR^lOTsn^i cbi<<iri<fl-i tiitRTf <i re^ iRr^ri •^sffinOT^r day counsei for defendant No.2 appeared and wised objection that without hearing him the app of the same was deliversd was recaiied and after hea "ejected. As the earlier ordi ication has been ailowed, therefore, a copy to counsel for defendant No.2 and after hearing f+iat application was ^ejec+eci. Therefore, in fact thcjt was not csny review, but on ttie same day the ex-parte order which wo|s passed in the absence of defendont No.2 ing both 1+ie parties, 1+ie appiication was r was psissed ex-parte, therefore, I do not find siny substance Jn this wrjit peti'tion and no iliegality and infirmSt/ has been committed by the Cow-^ below. Learned counsel for the petitioner- has not been ahl®to make opt a cas®for interference by this Court in the writ jurisdiction In the circumstances, 1{ie writ petition is dismissed in limine. Consequently, M.(W.}P.No.212/2005, I.A.Ncs.537/2005 and 538/2005 stand disposed of.| Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge