s^y^r^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. P. N0. ,^-^6^- /2004 PETITIONERS ^ .,AJ /rlS.~ .^/ff / IAk// V/^7 / />/^r- ^ ^>^ ""•^: ^ /.^' ^''^ ^fy 0.-' -.-?' ^ : /\, Kesmait Bai wd/o Iiate LaKhan Singh, age 73 years, Occupatlon Agrlculture, r/o vlllage Aara Kathaldand. Tehsil & District Jashpur, C.G. 2. Tara Devi d/o Late Lakhan Singh, age 40 years, Occupation-Servlce r/o village Bhagalpur, 'Itebsll & Distri.et surguja, C.G. 3. Gulab Singb s/o Late Nakul Singh, age 48 years. 4. Gufchlu S.i.ngh s/o Late Nakul singh age 40 years. 5. Ramkrishna Slngh s/o Late Nakul Singh, age 35 years. 6. Arjun Singb s/o Late Nakul Singh, age 30 years. No. 3 to 6 all r/o Aara, Kathal- dand, Tehsll & Distt. Jashpur,C.G, (PLAISTIPFS) V_E R_ S__U S RESPONDENT3 1. SuM-unani Bai wd/o Late Karampal Singh, age 52 years. 2. Rajltumar Singh s/o Late Karampal Singh, age 36 years. 3. Sa.lv Kuraar Slngh s/o Late Karampal Singh, age 28 years. K--^\- Uiarampal Singh s/o Late Budhu Slngh, age 55 years. All r/o vlllage Aara Kathaldand, Kastumba, Tehsll & Di.strict Jasbpar, C.G. tfe -2- ^" The state of eMaatt.i.sgarfa, 1;liroa§h C@.I.lecteF, %i.gtrict •,'c.e. . , .•-;' .. .SHIllil' (©^EH@&NTS) VKSE ®ETCT:X6N:jKNSERAR®K3EB';227 .©F'THB.eOETSTITXiTION .@P:Ja:NE»l <v TS •lll ^^^l^^^^^^%^^^^^^^l%i3^i%l^®l%:^:%^ XI-HC-22 niiisw • 311^1 ^T K-(I<* sflilSr ^Hl<^ ^l.^ ^. •^NftBi^R^dl'y^i Swi*1y ^.sni^T.'Ht^,"!^' nrwn si»w<»> .0.dt®^h ioo I^P^T" coilnsel 05.01.2005 Shri A.K. PrSsad, pounsel f4r Smt. F. Mirza, Panel Lawyei|- By this petition under Artiott fhe petitioner has"questiQned th^ the order dated 11.^0.2004 CAnne^t C.lass-II, Jashpumagar, District J4 the respontiei'[ts^lTE;rein:«asaJl<::)^ names of Ramkrishna Singh & E] filed by the petitiyners as^esideiK!e| showing sufficient cause tbat wby list ofwitneSses fhey could:'not be| I have heard^the leamed Learhed cpynsel for (he Ranikrishnal SirigK is concerried. fi'IinKlist of witriesses within his exaiiiiried'in~lsuppprfof,his6as Goncemed,''}'te:is!alsQtnaierial.-n;'it have rejecteel the applicafion filed HavingJheaTd.leamed.coyn^ to ttie law on the;point, ais ifar a|; concerned, it is an admitted'po.sif listed witness and !for •examininK t| required to undertdke the recoursi of Order 16 whichfenvisages th^tt recorded, permitfhSpartytocctll, U otherwise, any wsness, ofher tkes.n^ +I^Id^l -1 fli^^ ^ lssit^jfli<ip(. ^sil^pTsrt^r. the petifioners. ' fdr th6'State/respondent No. 5. ;.226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia legality, propriety and correctriess! of ;ure P-6) passed by leamed 'GivU Judge ishpur whereby the applieatiori filed by! 'ed' and it was ordered that since thei ilip' Kumai' Sai, whose affidavifs wesrei .:w!ere nof lisfed witnesses and without thelr names-'were not inclitdediin the ixamined, . !' , • 1 for the paTties.'- : " ! . | ^etitioriers submitted that: as "far as he, himself is a' plairitiff and^'H.'ithout rights tie is erutitleci fo :get hirriaelf and as far as -DiUp Kumar 'Sai is |ness.and:'learhed trial court ought to ; [>y the defendants/respondents;hereih. il for the petitioner and 'havirig^regard [s ^ the queslion of Dilip.Kufflar ;Sai'is |ion thaf SilipKumar Saiiwa^ 'not^the- |ie non-listed witnesses the^plaintiff is ayailable under sub-rule (3) ofiRule l Wie\ Court may, fo^ Teasoifs^'ta t>S [hether^^summomngthroug^Qw.irtor' Iffiose wbose names appearim.y'veSsf dwn ]' l.:"l: V1 II ill lll » IB ^'^^^'^•^"-'••-•-J;^::.:^~^: :-^S;-:;'^lS:^..i^i' :M(^:"""; "?3 XI-HC—78 ^ •<.ti*ii?i^!, ©til'M'iio,pit^rag.1 *(iwetFth*ti<!h "•wt,:^: on^i isi»t!('jq(3ai<i4) 3i1*?IW; R-fW WI 3RT^5T'9FRN? i'..'/' 1<cIsj^^n/- Tmiwgfti.m^F —-^^-. catise ajlid referred tb in, sub-rule(l), if su.ch omissio?i to meiftwnfhe. name ofsucf^ , It is an admitted position includedan. fhe;list of witnesses, no| .petitioners • showing sufKcient inentioned ia the'list of witnesses sub-rule (3) bfRule 1 pfOrder 16 t| Therefore, to the extent of witness or inSrmity in the order passed bj poihf raised hylearn'ed counsel fdr RaHikrishna;ls ^liunselfi'the plaintifT exarmne himself.'as a iwitness everl wifhin.fais owri, rights. Therefbre,| imgugnect orderlis griina-facie ille^: the, plaintiffs in the suit and he without filing list ofwitnesses. • AfaGordingly, the. order daf Karhkrishna Singh is set aside anc| Raiinkrishha SinBh wants to exam| allowed.. ;V/: With above observation and'([ of.a . ! 'CQnsequently, M.W.P. No.4c|: disjiosed of. : •-"Certified copy as per rules. can •^rafe#TiTOiHf<fft'at <Ri'yi< ^ :;:';- iTaifm.am^i jxzrty shows suffident cause for the witnessin the sdid list'. jhat name tif Dilip Kuraar was not |applicati6n was filed on behalf of the that -why his name was not without obtaining any order under [le petitioners have filed his affidavit. pilip Kumar Sai, there is no illegality t.he leaiTied trial court. But other [he petitioner has isubstance because l'io.5 in the suit and any plaintiff can without fiHng any list 6f witnesses to the extent of Ramkrishan, the |al, as Ran-ikrishan himself is one of. exaiTiine himself as a witness even ted 11:10.2004 to the'extentl of it is directed that if petitioner N6.5- |ne himself as a witness then he be 4irection, the petifion stailds dispdsed |21/04 8s I.A. No.9176/04 also stand 'SST L.C. Bhadoo Judge R