« HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.2052 of 2009 Umesh Dubey, aged 38 years, son of Lekhram Dubey, resident of Jabrapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Plaintiff) Versus 1. Ramgopal Sahu, aged 50 years, son of late Shri Jhanglu, caste Teli, resident of Lingiyadih, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh through the District Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Defendants) {Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Somnath Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Saleem Kazi, counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. Akhil Agrawal, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondent No.2. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (27-9-2011) 1. I.A.No.2 for taking documents on record is allowed. Documents be taken on record. 2. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the orders dated 5-11- 2008 & 11-12-2008 passed by the 8th Additional District Judge (FTC), Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.2-A/2006 whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner herein for adjournment has been dismissed and the review application has also been dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the orders impugned and copies ofthe documents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although civil suit is pending since 2002 and the petitioner has taken several adjournments, ,^t:""%. ff/,f ,,^^ 11 l' ^iSsih 1g ^ /]'• ^// Soma but the petitioner has not examined any witness in support of his claim, if opportunity to adduce evidence is not provided to the petitioner, serious prejudice would be cased to him. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 vehemently opposes the petition and submits that although several opportunities have been given to the petitioner herein/plaintiff, but for the reasons best known to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has not examined any witness and the case is pending since 2002. 6. On due consideration, especially considering hardship to the petitioner and attitude of the petitioner towards his case, the petition is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to respondent No.1 herein within fifteen days from today before the trial Court. Order closing evidence of the petitioner is hereby set aside. The trial Court shalt after providing two opportunities of adducing evidence to the petitioner herein and after providing opportunity of adducing evidence and hearing to the respondents shall decide the case. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge 1