XI.HG—78 '3^? »<ii<i^<<, ©til'y^Ko,/f««ni'M^< (A7fCc) (£(<?^)<95 ^TO^IT (RWcR """"""""""""""""""" """"^ 200 ^n^r T^W (y^<i?) 3^'^.^T ^Jcb r""W 3TT^?T 9r)^icr» WTTWRf^T 3?!^? Sinale Bench; Hon'bie Juifetice Dhirendra Mishra W.P.Fd No. (Petition under Article 227 Petitioner : Kabiruddin, years, R/o Bi Vs Respondents 1. Plaintiff No.2 Deferiddhts rli Me4h No|4 3art Kutubuddln Budhapar^ 2. Hakimudc Near Baijriatht 3; Jiyauddir Near 4. Jahiruddln, 5. Jamiluddli, Res. Bydhapar|a, 6. Moinuddi 7. Aminuddi 8. Nasim Hussain, 9. Vasim 10. Shamim 11. Sinamiri years. Res. No.4 Vivekanal Raipur 12. Sanjida ;Hakim, Baijnath| 13. Keshar Bazar, N( cni^F<n<fli ^TPT?[f ^f 'fe^ <Pt^i< ^3?iRm3T?^?r 407/2009 |of Constitutionof India) \/o Late Sirajuddin, aged about 68 |dhapara, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C6) S/o Nawabuddin, 70 years, R/o r|i, Raipur(C.(5.) ; |in, S/o Adjijuddin, 68 years, R/o liadarsha, Avon Cycle Store, plara, Raipur (C6) S/o Adjijuddin, 52 years, R/o Market, Budhapara, Raipur (C6) \, 5/0 Adjijuddin, 50 years, i, S/o Adjijuddin/45 years/ <& 5 , R/o P.T.I. Building, 4»,Raipur (CG) i, S/o Kutubuddin,47 years. li|i, S/o Kutubuddin, 47 years. |\khatar Khajdani, W/o Ahmad p6 years. \ S/o Kutubddin, 44 years. ^khtar, S/o Kutubddin, 40 years. ^nsari, W/o Rafique Md. Ansari, 30 Urkar to 11, R/o Modern Cycle Stores, d Ward, Raipur, Kalibadi Road, w ^egam ©Sanju, W/o Late Abdul ^/o In front of Barlota Bhawan, |ara, Raipur (C.G.). ^egam, W/o Hidayatulla, R/o Bairbn sar Akbar Manjil, Raipur^C.6.) F ^l i •ls ;'^1 'x XI-HG—78 ^F^ T<ii^i<rt^ ^til^^ i<o, (®i<rtw^< *11*IMI ^»*(T<t> ^TI^T ^?T f<'l1<sb \^TT 3TT^?T 9r>*il<sr> "^ 200 ^TI^T Tra^F (yi(^^) '^TTW^f^T 3^lrT "^" 2J 17.3.2009 Mr. Prafulla ^harat, Adv. f<\ Heard. The petitioner and respond| civil suit for declaratjon of title <=M^t<n<fl^ HM<nl ^ fe^i <Rt^$i< ^fr3tRPT3n^5T r the petitioner. snt No.l herein jointly instituted pind permanent injunction before the trial court. Resppndent No.liyplaintiff No.2 during the course 6f fpidt sworn an :affidavit und^r Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC .:.. : . - .. 1 ..-.'. • $uppbrtjng case of +he defendant^ and in these circumstances the petitioner moved an application u|ider Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the CPC for transposing the ndme of frial court rejected the said apf evidence of the plaintiff is on the^ not be appropriat? to allow the| stage. Apprehension of the petit) blaintiff No.2 as defendant. The |lication on the ground that the |verge of completion and it would petitioner's application at this loner is that the affidavit sworn by the plaintiff No.2 may be rec|d against him by the trial court while disposing of the civil suit. I have heard learned couns^l for the petitioner. - From perusal of the impu^ned order it would be evident that ptaintiff No.2 has taken stc^nd in reply to the application of the petitioner that his name may be deleted as plaintiff. .1- FT XI-HG—78 3T1^T ^T ^Jcb '^ff 3TT^T $b^ich ^^^i^i<n4i, ^tilwi^i°i<rtt<iy H11CTI (1>*1|C|» f5 "^ 200 ^n^T'q^w (yil^^r) ^RTTW^f^T W^?T •q>^\ Whereas, stand of the other may be permitted to cross-examin|s After going through the| petition is disposed of with a dire| the petitioner ^herein to No.2/respondent No.l herein, \\ contradictory stand of plaintiff N| under Order 18 Rule40f CPC. Consequently, I.A. No.l aiso| Certifiedcopy as per rules. cr»i<i(<n<jii *iM<rff'^F T€<<I <f^t<^i< ^siRm^n^r dejfendants is that the petitioner plaintiff No.2. impugned order, the instant fction to the court below to allow |cross-examine the plaintiff so desired,in the light of |>.2 in the plaint and his affidavit |stands disposedof. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge