. ^.. Ss!'«y.?-£.«?fc"*:»»i IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Art.227) N0. 3U5^ ^^^^JF 2009 PETITIONER (Defendant No.lA) RESPONDENTS (Plaintiffs) ^', 7/f^ / ^f^ .%^7' .^'^" ^'.^' ..••" Vs Pramod Kumar Supta, aged about 45 years, son of Badri Prasad 6upta, resident of Malviya Road, Raipur", Tehsil <& District Raipur. 1. Maniklal Bhattacharya, son of Virendra Nath Bhattacharya, aged about 39 years, Executive Engineer, P.H.E., resident of Kanker, Tehsil Kanker, District Bastar (C6). 2. Hira Lal Bhattacharya, son of Virendra Nath Bhattacharya, aged about 35 years, residenf of Hospital Ward, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur. 3. Smt. Shyam Bai, aged about 25 years, wife of Shri S.M. Chhatterjee, 6ole Miri, Tata Nagar, District Singbhumi Bihar. 4. Smt. Monica, aged about 27 years, wife of Ranjan Nandi, resident of Near State Bank, Shantisur, f' Defendant No.lB Oefendant No.lC Defendant No.ID Defendant No.IE '"-.^' befendant No. 1F Kolkata. ( 5. Smt. Kalawati Supta, aged about 63 years, widow of Late Badri Prasad Supta, resident of Malviya Road, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur. /6. Smt. 6eeta (Supta, aged about 43 years, wife of Ashok Supta, resident of 99, 6rant Road, Kolkata, West Bengal. ( 7. Smt. Savita (Supta, aged about 41 years, wife of Mahesh Narayan £upta, resident of 66, Purani Basti, Unnav (Uttar Pradesh) . 8. Smt. Beena Supta, wife of Shri Arun Kumar fiupta, aged about 39 years, resident of Purana Bus Stand, Chikhli, Bulihiana, Maharashtra. 9. Smt. Maya Supta, aged about 36 years, wife of Ramesh 6upta, resident of Transport Nagar, Kanpur, U.P. 10. Vinod Kumar Supta, aged Defendant No.2 to 7. ^. about 30 years, son of B.P. Supta, Malviya Road, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (M.P.) ll.Rahi Bai, aged about 45 years, wife of Satendra Nath Bhattacharya, resident of Hospital Ward, Raipur, Tehsil <& District Raipur (M.P.) 12. Smt. Shakuntala Jain, aged about 60 yegrs, wife of Hukumchand Jain. 13. Ashok Kumar Jain, aged about 43 years, son of Hukumchand Jain. 14. Kamal Chand Jain, aged about 25 years, son of Hukumchand Jain. 15. Lalit Kumar Jain, aged about 23 years, son of Hukumchand Jain. Respondents No.12 to 15 residents of B-30, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur (C£) PETITION UNbER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA •te. 7s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'bie Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No.3492 of2009 Pramod Kumar Gupta versus Maniklat Bhattacharya and others ORDER Postfor 19-01-2010 Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge '"atosgs ^^ HIGH CQURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition 1227} No.3492 of 2009 Petitioner Respondents versus Pramod Kumar Gupta Maniklal Bhattacharya and others Present: Shri B.P.Sharma, counsel forthe petitioner. 'r^ Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ORDER (Passed on ^-January, 2010) In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/defendant No.1A has called in question the order dated 4-4- 2009 passed by the learned 2"'1 Additional District Judge, Raipur (Annexure P-1) rejecting his application under sub-rute (2) of Rule 5 of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the said application, the petitioner had prayed for deletion of additional issue No.2 framed by the trial Court on 13-1-1998. 2. Additional issue No.2 framed by the trial Court was to the effect as to whether the deceased defendant No.1 has executed a wi!l in favour of Pramod Kumar Gupta, the present petitioner. 3. Learned counse! for the petltioner has argued that in a suit filed bythe p!aintiff, question ofexecution ofwill by one defendant in favour of another defendant cannot be an issue, therefore, the additional issue No.2 deserves to be deleted. •^'.^s'"-^^ y y-aEi^ ^ '<is, '^••SSSXs. t '-•^^ ^ .. ^J/ •t- '•>i r)S _?ScL2aL_.._. 4. Whiie rejecting the application, the learned trial Court has observed that the present petitioner/defendant No.1A has already closed his evidence and his prayer for permlssion for re-examination has been turned down, which has been confirmed by the High Court and that the instant application for deletion of the additional issue has been made after 11 years of its framing and also after closing of his evidence. It has also been observed that the suit was filed on 21-9- 1982 and the learned trial Court is making efforts to dispose it of as early as possible. 5. In view of the reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court while rejecting the application, this Court does not find any error warranting interference by this Court In exercise of powers under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India. Since the suit is pending since 1982, the learned trial Court is directed to decide the suit as early as possible, 6. The writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage with the aforesaid direction. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge