;u rni SOT np /•!- in i i A.3 •I A GM » PETITIONER/; RESPON&ENT5/: s^-f'^^,'^^^4' ^'t-'iS' i £-Ji'iUiui.; 5 i ^ •S'S"! of 7. Santlal Son of Shri Pannalal Koir, aqed cbout 20 years, Occupati.on Agricul+ure, Resident of Village Karhaiya Khurd, Post Sirijapu" (Patna), Tahsi! Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriva fC.6.\ ;h/ S^rfi i» .j'^'w'S ty --lA ^ •--' »'•!»** ./- Versus 1. Sfflt. Parvati Vi/'ife of 5hri Shivdas Koir, aged about 50 yeo.rs, Occupation Agriculture, Residsnt of Village and Post Sirsi, Police Station Bhuiyathari, Tahsi! Surajpu", tiistt. Surgujc (C.6.). 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Koriya (C.6.) 3. Wahid Aii Son of Nalmuddin A]i, aged about 28 years, Occupation Household; 4. Jyarat Ali Son of Mohammed A!i, aged about 20 years, Occupat'on Agriculture; ttubarak Aii Son of Mohammed Ali, aged about 18 years, Occupation Agricuiture; Farookh Ali Son of Mohamffled Ahmed Ali, aged about 24 years, Occupation Agricuiture; Roshan Ali Son of Mo'nammed Ahmed Ali, aged about 22 yea"s, Occupa+ion in Tne respondent No.3 to 7 are resident of Village Karhaiya Khurd, Post Sirijapur (Po.tna), TahsH Baikunthpur', t)istt. Koriya.- {Vi/rit pe+ition under Article 227 of the Cons-ritution of India) lAshok Kumar Shukla, counsei for the petitioner. None present for respondents No.l and 3 to 7, though served. 'Ar. Sanjeav Kumar Agravml, Pane! Lawye" for the State/n Donden' !-. (24-11-2009) 1. By this writ petition under Articie 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/piain-hff in Civil Suit No.lO-A/1998 berore the Court of 1ST Civil Judge Ciass-I, Baikunthpur, has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari/mandamus to set aside the orders dated -5-5-2007 & 11-7-2007 passed by the 1 Ci'.'i! Judge Ciass-I, Baikunthpur in Ciyi! Suit No.lO-A/ 2. According to the copies of the impugned orders, copies of the applications and ot'ner documents, Civil Suit No.lO-A/1998 was pending before the Court of 1 Civii Judoe Ciass-I. BaikunthDur. and it was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff on 5-5-2007. On 5-5-2007, the case was called out three times and in absence of the plaintiff and his witnesses opportunity of adducing evidersce of the plaintiff was closed. On the so.me day at 1.3E p.m. the petitioner/plaintiff fsied an application for providing opportunit/ of eyidence to the plaintiff in which he has mentioned the fact that the plaintiff's witnesses namely, Jagmohaniai Supta, Bihari Lal Kushwaha & Bhagiratni Prasad Singh, whose evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. has already been filed, were present for further exarnination and on the ground of iiiness of his counsel the plaintiff and his counsel were not present when the case was cailed for hearing. After providing opportunit).' of hearing to the parties the Court below has dismissed the application for proyiding opportuni-iy of adducing evidence to the petitioner/piaintiff, vide' order dated 11-7-2007. 3. I haye heard 'earned counsei for the parties present, perused 'i-hs orders impugnea' and copies of other documents. T7 Vf Learned counsel for the petitioner yehemently argued that on 5-5-2S the piaintiff and his witnesses were present, but whe.i the co.se vvas calied out fo" hearing, the piaintiff went to cal! 'nis counsei w'no was not preisent in the Court prernises on 'nis personal ground and at 1.35 p.m., the plaintiff has filed an qaplication for providing opportunit/ fo" adducing his evldence in which he has rnentioned tne fact that his three witnesses namely, w Jagmohanlal iSupta, Bihar'i Lal.Kushwaha & Bhagirathi Prasad Singh, whose evidence' under Order 18 Ru!e 4 of the C.P.C. has clready been submitted before the Court, were present. Learned counsel further argued that the Court beiow has passed the orde" in has-ry manner and without providin; opportunity- of adducing evidence. TTiis is not the case in which the piaintiff or 'nis witnesses were not present. Signatures of the witnesses aiso reflect in t'ne order sheet dated 5-5-2007 that they were present before the Court on ths said date. 5. On the other hand, iearned State counseE supported the orders ifflpugned. 6. Orders impugned and the application filed on behaif of tne petitioner on 5- 5-2007 reveal that ths piaintiff and the witnesses, whose evidence under- Order 18 Ru!e 4 of the C.P.C. has aiready been filed before tne Court, v»erepresent before the Court on 5-5-2007. Oh 5-5-2007 at 1.35 p.m. the petitioner' h-is filed an application'for providing opportunity' of fidducing evidence of the wi-hiesses pr'esent in the Court, but instead of providins opportunity or examining tne witnesses the Court below has adjourned the case and on 11-7-2007, the Court has dismissed fhe said application. Adrnittedly, the Court below has committed patent iiiegality warranting Interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Artic'e 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Consequentiy, the petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 5-5- 2007 a 11-7-2007 passed by the 1 Clvil Judge Class-I, Baikunthpur in Civi! 5uit No.lO-A/1998 are hereby qucshed. The Court below is difected to provida opportunlt)' of adducing evidence to t'ne piaintiff and decide the case, In accordance wit'n law. as to costs. So'nQ Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge