"i*. •SV!SSi :ipjisi|ji!':g;:|r &M ^^%'::.'^s?' ^uob- IN THE fflGH COUEI OFJUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARfl „. , ^ W.P.No. ^72003 ,'.» ^^^ >'\ul^C5^>"- u^ <^^%:: t--'^ ^-' u^/ .•s^./ «-v-^^-" . ^^_:^ .-^-^^--•..... '^jk."^ ^_ " _ ^ .7.;'.'"- ...-~. ~^;-^1^'^~-.^^.T. (j^ (1) SardarKrishnaSinghS/oLateSardarHakimSuighagedabout 60 years occupation - cultivator and businessman, (2) Sardar Gurdeep Singh S/o Late Sardar Hakim Singh aged about 43 years occupation businessman (3) Smt. Amai-jeetKaur D/oLate SardarHakim Singh aged about 45years occupation- housewife (4) Smt. Balbir Kaur W/o Late Sardar Hakim Singh aged aboyt 82 oecypation- housewife. .* ' ." . / • c€?> .j^llR/oSadarRoadAmbikapurDistt-Surguja(C;G.) PETITIONERS/ PLAINTIFFS VERSUS : • Raghvendra Kumar Mudgal S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal Mudgal, aged about 40 years, occupation- businessman. (2) Kanhaiyalal Mudgal S/o Omkar Prasad Mudgal, a^ed about 80 years, occupation retired public servant. (3) SardarSadhu charanjit Singh S/o Late shri Hakim Singh, aged about 48 years, occupation none. Resp. No. 1 to 3 r/o High School Road. Ambikapur Surguja (C. °•) State of Chhattisgarh through Collector Surguja Ambikapur Distt-Surguja (C. G.) RESPONDETS/DEFENDAISTS ~~~> .;:3>; IIKI IJI^^-^ Ss~j K BBi.3^- •y S.WSSX.'SQ :soxs,t3.'sasWD3S~ao &g8•SIS^ISBV aaeuaa soiaisad SXBM (S) XI-HC-22 sn^r^i fqii?b ^IcSt ?ti+ii<ti «fid A- ^•--\ '3;°?-<)l*lld<<, a'nlwis, iqdiHy 111CTI ShHKO 3ff^T TRq? "A;..aih^.^.. ..„^I. 28Q5 (c|'()t{ISI sii^i^aw^riOT 13.09.a003 tfce tlie crOss tts/defeiJLdari.ts defendaut ShriV.K. Pacidey, coUIis41 SIui H.S. Tripafhi, coun^e This writ petition under of India has been. filed by th^ dated 23.07.2003 passed by Suit No.37A/2003 by which the right of th.e pldintiff to Raghevendra Kuiaar Mudgal ffled by the respondents/defeiJLt record the statenient of eoaimission betng iU and old <I havfi heard tlie learued LeaMied counSel for fhe and fi'aiLkly sublnits fhat plaiiitifFs/petitioners are no. 1 - Raghvendra Siagh and Mudgal, is ready to appear if^liis liealth permits but his peading sm.(» 1985 and the tiyuig to delay the suitfer OIIEJ order-sfaeet dated 23.07.20031 suliiaissioa m^de by the leame< &2. The perusal of the order the plaintiffs SIui V.K. Soni at| When fhe inatter caUed out allovtpd befdre chl14i<'l4l'f 'qFT^y ^ fs^ <Rn^R, ^T SliidH 3fl$g forthe petitioaers. • ;1 for the respondents ao. 1 & 2. ftrticles 226 & 227 of Constitution petitioners challengiag fhe order 5th Civil Judge, Class-II iB Civil leamed Crril Judge has closed ,-exauuae ttie respondenf no.l- ^ad also allowed the appUcation uiider Order 26 Rule 1 to no. 2 Kanhaiya Lal Mudgal on person. ^ iounselfor the parties, |resp6njdents DG. 1 &:2 very fairly he has no objectioii if the to cross-examine respondeiit ^ven respondent no.2 Kaaliaiyalal ftie Court for cross-examiaalaon |only grievance is that (he stiit is t>laiutiffe / petitioners lijereja.are |fir^<other reasou.; A; perusal of fhc ! bf the trial Court justtdes tbe 1 eouiisel for the respondeuts no, 1 sheet reveals that the counsel for 1.20piii sought tnne fill 3.00 pm., at 4.25piil fhe counsel for ftaty XI-HC-22^ an^i'wi K-iL* s^s st)*flcti yi?fl -.l- Ot.k'^V 'S^ -ill*ll^, .aiTilwi®,i««'ii+iy. HIICTI »Hi<=h sni^r _\.^^^v% "-g^ 2oo? fa*<fST" learded auld plfliatifif^/ petitii pia&tiffs Shri Soiii was not again catled outat 4.45pin bu) present. Tliis laakes it clear 'frattts to avoid the proceediags| the Court. Having -heard fhe having regard tofffae facte petition^t is atlowed to the chance is given to the witnesses - Raghvendra Kuin^ Accorditigly, fhe parties are Court on 29th & 30*11 Raghvendra Kymar Mudj for the plauitiffs andoti 30.09.] Mudgal will be recorded aad the plaintiffs. The Presidiag that the prbceedings are coS It is made clear th.at no couasel for the plauitiffs if he cpunsel for fhe plaiatiffs fails that date theri ttie r^ht of cross Wifh this observations staads disposed of. Consequei No.8527/2003 also starids Certified copy as per Rule! pi)e8eiit Setteinber salwiUlbe Ofl&cer cofeple^ed <<)|tii<'f'iil'i ^iticff ifs'4 <(»i«;i< i;3^OT31i^T Even thereafter inatter Waa counsel for fhe plaintifFs was not that the dounsel for tlie plaiatiffs and they are not eooperating with couiisel for tbe parties and circiimstances of the case, the ejsrtent that as a last opporttmity CE^/petitiQners to cross-examiae the Mudgal & Kaiihaiyalal Mudgal. d^Tected to appear before the trial 2003. On'29.09.2003 cross-examiBedbythecouasel , p003 fhe stafemerit bf KacLttaiyalal c^oss-examined by ttie counsel for of trial Gourt wilt also ensure QB.boffa days. pirther tim.e should be granted to ^eeks adjourtunent ;and if leanied eross-exanune the witnesses on i)-eX£uniuatk>nwill be over. 4nd directions, tfais writ petition ).Uy, M.W.P. N0.2605/2003&I.A. of ; .—^"-" SdA _ L.C. Bhadoo Judge disp[3sed