IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.(U.A. 2271NQ. lji-3Sl6 of 2009 PETITIONER/ Plaintiff RESPONDENTS/ Defendants ^^swis^s ptese^800^"' ^.-•-y''" -/: Santra Bai, D/o Late Fatelal Satnajmi, aged about 52 years, R/o Village-Potia, P.S. Nandni, Tahsil-Dhamdha, District-Durg (C.G.) VERSUS ^:1. Balmukund Sahu, S/o Late Loknath Sahu,j aged about 58 years, R/o Viillage-Potia, P.S. Nandni, Tahsil-Dhamdha, District-Durg (C.G.) / 2. StateofChhattisgarh, Through Collector, Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITIONUNDERARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA /-1 ^^ ^WP^, ®Ti1<1'IS, is|<v1!'Hll,< ,...^p4^.^)-.4<^.., ^ k wiisn^ia^? ^sTqt?R^T Hl^K^? ^' ^^ Tf^$R ii'sffifflan^l ~J&BrHmi'bie^rTjustice^NJC^Iai:waT 11-08-2009 Shri DN Prajapati, Advoca e for the petitioner. Heard on admission. The instant petition is ^irected against the order dated 30.06.2009, passed by the VIth (fml Judge Class-I, Durg, whereby and whereunder an opportunity tip adduce evidence has been closed bv the trial court. The brief facts of the casei evidence sometime in tfae month are that, the matter was fixed for \)f September, 07 and the petitioner filed afiidavits under Order 18 Rijile 4 ofCPC before the court below of witnesses, Hanvan B-.am, Santt'a Bai, Sant Ram Kurre and Anna Budha Ram. However, the casej was adjourned frora time to time either on the request of petitione^ or on the request of respondsnts, and ultimately, vide impugned closed bv the trial court. order, the opportiinity has been Shri Prajapati submits thajt several times the petitioner was present in the court but due to rej^uest of defeHdants evidence could not be completed and on 30-06-()9 at 4:30 PM the case was called and opportunity has been closedj by the trial court which is illegal and perverse. He further prays that in view ofthe facts situation of, ?;'ra^r-7 ^m^ K?vn^^": -FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. /.^'\. ? s. '^ a•8%.^??:,% '^s^ an^ Sahu 'ysr ^fitii<n^, 'graNprs, t^Rn??3T "vw (V •iRFlfepih•WTCJf •q f^A Tfe?R ^ra»fiCT5ffl^[ the case, at least an opportunity [ought to have been afforded by the trial court to examine three witn^sses including the. petitioner herself and the respondent may be com{3ensated by payment of reasonable costs. Having heard the counseljs appearing for the petitioner, and having perusing the record, this jcourt is of the opinion that at least one opportunity ought to have b^en afforded by the trial court to the petitioner to adduce her witnes^. Therefore, the order impugned deserves to be and is hereby setjaside, subject to payment ofa sum of Rs. 3000/- as costs by the pejtitioner, and the matter is remitted back to the trial court with a d|rection to give opportunity to the petitioner to adduce three witi^esses including the petitioner to adduce evidence on the ne?d datei ofhearing before the trial court i.e. on 10,09.2009. Hovvever, if t|ie respondents herein feel some ;rieyance then they are at libert}'' jto move appropriate application. W^ith the above direction t}iis petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. 1 . ——— Sd/- -^ N.K. Agarwal Judge