HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSQARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(ClNo.1083of2010 Petitioner Santosh S/o Ramayan Singh Rajput, Applioant aged about 46 years, R/o viltage Kancha Bag, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Resoondent Non-applicant Ve/sus Smt.Babita Singh, D/o Shri Komal Singh Baghel, aged about 47 year^, R/o Village Fuljhar Mainpur, Tehsjl Gariyaband, District Raipur (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of india) MrAnoop Mazumdar, counsel for tfie petitioner. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J^ ORDER(ORAU (10-8-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Articte 226/227 of the GDnstitution of India the petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the orders cteted 11.1.2010 and 5.2.2010 passed by the C'M\ Judge Cla^-l, Gariyaband. whereby the Court below has declined to consider the evidence recorded in main petition which has been recorded in restoration proceeding. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and pwused the orders impugned. 3. The Court below has not denied the opportunity of adducing eyidence to the petltioner. Order dated 11.1.2010 reveals that initially M.J.C.No.2/19e9 was restored vide order dated 15.9.2004 and statements of some witnesses were recorded in MJ.C.No.22/2004 instead of MJ.C.No.2/1999 and thereafter again it was dismissed for want of prosecution. Ordersheet of the Court below reveais that due to clertesd defect instead of restoration of MJ.C.No.2/1999 the Court below has again re-registered e@ M.J.C.No.22/2004. 4. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the Court below shall examine the record and find out whether statements of the witnesses were recorded in main petition i.e. MJ.C.No.2/1999, may be after restoratton in wrcmg number i.e. ^ aBpnr ^UU^TSIIS 'd'-^ -/PS •s^soo 01 SB japjo ON "sseo SJMI p aouepiAe se uoi^iad UIBLU uj papjooej sesssuijM QU^ ^o eouapiAe 041 jepisuoo ijeqs ynoo sqi usqi uoiij^d UIBUI ui pspjooaj U98q sey i| pue WOS/ZS'ON'OT'IAI ^~)