HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR WRIT PETITIQN (2271 No. 2658 of 2009 PETITIONER/ PLAINTIFF Fuchka, S/o Late Shri Dhaloo, aged about 55 years, R/o Village Siritoli Kharwatoli, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS Admon, S/o Late Shri Murji r/o Siritoli Kharwatoli, Tah. Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) Jageshwar, S/o Late Shri Sukhdeo, R/o Siritoli Kharwatoli, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G,.) Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, through Executive Engineer, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C,.G.) WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Smt. Indira Tripathi, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Government Advocate for the State/respondent No.4 on advance copy ORDER (20.05.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard. (2) Being aggrieved with the order dated 07.05.2009 passed in Civil Suit No.15-A/2008 by Civil Judge Class-ll, Kunkuri, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed this writ petition. W.P.(227)No.2658/2009 ^ (3) A perusal of the impugned order would show that many opportunities were awarded to the petitioner/plaintiff to adduce his evidence, but the petitioner did not adduce the evidence and ultimately, the learned Civil Judge has to close the rights of the petitioner, refusing adjournment under Order 17 Rule 1 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure. It further reveals that after such refusal, the defendants' expressed that they do not want to adduce any evidence and the matter was fixed for final arguments on 13/05/2009. (4) Smt. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that with a view to give complete justice to the parties, one last opportunity may be granted to the petitioner/plaintiff and if he fails to adduce his evidence on this occasion, then, his rights may be directed to be closed. She makes statement that till today, the judgment has not been passed and the matter has been fixed before the concemed Civil Judge in the month of June 2009. (5) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also perused the records of the writ petition. (6) Undoubtedly, ample opportunities were granted to the petitioner/plaintiff for leading the evidence. It appears that on 19.02.2009, the petitioner has filed an affidavit of one Baldev Ram under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but he could not produce him for the cross-examination on the subsequent date and an adjournment was sought at the cost of Rs.100/-, but even after that, the said witness or any other witness could not be produced and ultimately, an adjournment under Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was sought, which was refused by the trial Court. (7) In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of the trial Court was unjustified, but with a view to give complete justice to the parties, 1 am of the opinion that a last \ opportunity should be granted to the petitioner/plaintiff to adduce W.P.(227) No.2658/2009 ^c° his evidence and if he fails to avail such opportunity he shall have to face the consequences. (8) Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and it is directed that the trial Court shall fix the date of evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and on that date, the petitioner/plaintiff shall produce his witnesses including Baldev Ram and their evidence will be recorded. If theevidence will not be completed on that date, it shall continue on the subsequent days till the closure of the plaintiff's evidence. Thereafter, the defendants shall be given due opportunity to adduce their evidence in accordance with law. (9) This order shall be subject to cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) upon the petitioner/plaintiff, which he shall pay to the counsel for respondents No.1 and 3 (Rs.500/- each) on any date prior to the commencement of the evidence, failing which, he shall not be able to avail such opportunity. (10) It is made clear that this order is being passed ex-parte without notice to the respondents, therefore, if the respondents/defendants feel aggrieved with this order, they shall have aright to approach this Court in appropriate forum making their all grievances. (11) With the aforesaid observations/directions, this petition stands finally disposed of. (12) Accordingly, I.A. No.01 for grant of ad-interim writ, I.A. No.02 for urgent hearing and I.A. No.03 for hearing the case during summer vacation stand disposed of. —^ -_- Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge shyna