In the High Court of Chhattisg‘arh, Bilaspur'" WP(227) _ a23§ ”(no $§W€iiE EEEE‘QQH ‘ a? In the Matter of — O. 22 r. 5 CPC proceedings in CS 4B titled Mewadevi (Since deceased) V. Ramgopal pending before X — AD], Raipur And between : Petition Under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India Petitioner / Ramgopal Agrawal, 40 Yrs., Rm V S/ o Shankar Lal Ii Agrawal, 5/571, Ramsagarpara, Raipur Versus Respondent; / Inderlal Agrawal, 49 Yrs., e nts V LR. S/o Gyarsi Lal Agrawal, WM 5/571, Ramsagarpara, Raipur H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU R Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition_(227) No.285 bf 2010 Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ORAL ORDER (Passed on 41'1May, 201 0) Heard. 2. One, Mewadevi preferred a suit for recovery of Rs.2,29,000/— against the petitioner/defendant The plaintiff died on 16-12—2001. The respondent ciarmlng to be son of Mewadevr preferred an application ‘under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (henceforth ‘the Code, 1908') for his impleadment in the suit. 3. The petitioner subntitted his replvvtgo the respondent's application \ and denied that the applicant/respondent herein is the son of Late Mewadevi. Thus, the trial Court proceeded to determine the question "r' Ui ‘H If as to the legal representative of deceased plaintiff in accordance with /l‘ ‘ the provision contained in Order 22"R'ul'e" '5‘of . th‘er'VCode. 1908. In the ' said proceedings, the applicant/respondent herein began his evidence and closed his case on 12-9-2006. Thereafter, the petitioner/defendant f 1-113 cpu It; tilt: ‘x-i:§.‘w . ;s- -‘. i H Petitioner Ramgopal Agrawal versus Respondent lnderlal Agrawal Present Shn Raja Sharma counsel for the petitioner None appears for the respondent ' Parson? \(W ¢ t led his evidence in the enquiry and the matter was posted for arguments on 13—10-2009. On the said date, the arguments were heard in part, which was later on conciuded on 14-10-2009. It was fixed for orders on 27-10-2009, however, orders were not passed and it was adjourned for 10-11-2009 when the impugned order-has been passed. 4. In the impugned order, the Iearned triai Court has reopened the case by observing that to prove the documents submitted by applicant lnderlai, permission was accorded to summon the Government employees, hoWever, the ‘applicant’ilnderlal“’ha‘s‘ not produced those Government employees to prove the documents. The trial Court further observed that their examination is necessary to decide the application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the applicant of the application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code, 1908 has closed his case and the matter was posted for orders on the said application after'completionl‘of thé‘iendtiiry: :the’ learned trial‘C‘ourt ought not to have reopened the hearing by directing the applicant to produce further evidence. 6. On perusal of the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ petition, there appears to be force in the submission made by leamed counsel for the petitioner. ln the impugned order itself, the trial Court has observed that the applicant .l lnderlal‘ has""not ‘madéw‘anyH l effort": ll L“to”’ t summoh"{the'”GoVernment t‘ ’t! W \\ employees to prove the documents filed by him in support of his / ‘l \ i $ application. When the applicant hirriself has not summoned the witnesses and has closed his case, it was not for the trial Court to reopen the matter and direct the parties to produce evidence. Once the applicant, who was dominus litis, has closed his case and thereafter the non-applicant/petitioner herein has also Ied his evidence and has closed his case, the trial Court should not have passed the impugned order on the date when the Court ,was supposed to pass final order to decide the application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code, 1908. 7. Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code, 1908 empowers the Court to determine the question-as to whether/any person‘iscor is‘: not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, however, such determination is required to be based on the materials made available before the Court by the parties. lf a party has chosen not to submit further evidence,‘th‘e trial’CoiJrtfin‘its‘discretion, cannot reopen the issue regarding determination of the question as to legal representative and should proceed to decide the matter on the basis of material on record. to H..L,Lil'\§i {NH-y lJcidUE‘l 1:3 tn' 11 I” ‘; 8. ln the opinion of this Court, the impugned order has been passed by the learned trial Court with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction and it deserves to be set aside in exercise of extra—ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article’i’227‘of the’Constitution'of India. Sd//— Prashant Kumar Mishra Gopal Judge _ t_ c ; 9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The ' impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.