r !RB: ss IB 'sss BBIS •8 iK$ BIi ss lilflv ^w^- ^^^r"^'"^ SB%$ l^j^:;^ ^^^^ BEFDRE HON'BLE HIGH CQURTQF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ((?) No. S.M[\ /200Q - c?^^^ ' RETITIONER Plaintiff Ram Bai wife of Budhram Dewangan aged about 55 years, R/o Ward No. 7 Shankarpur, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS KESPONDENTS 4. Defendants '2. Sunder Vadav son of Dasru Yadav aged about 40 years, Chamru Thakur son of not known, ^i^ ,Jl<rftri^us- Ex-Councilor, Municipal Corporatiori, v>''i/~S"" ... . . _ ' ' <^.s^»2/^E')-""" a9ed about5Q years, Both are R/oWard No. 7, Shankarpur, Rajnandgaon(C,G.) ^^p" WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 227QR THE CONSTITUTIOM OFINDIA. ' XI-HC—78 *<1*(CTI at*iiq» ~?S! •<<l<1l<y1<1, SSTll-M'Ko, —t).sb. •j^ioog sf^ •v^; ('^3^?) SS^V W ft-ii'* WT SV^V 3h^' 25.06.2009 ^siiWdf?^ an^CT S.R Hun'fclfrSfetJiBlfeeN.K. ^in^ ShriAnupMajuiBda-,Advoca|teforthepetitioner. Heardonadmission. This petiticMi is dffeetedagaitist Ae (wder dated 17.04.2009 (Annexure P/I), whereby, the appli( IfiledunderOrder 17 Rule 1 ofCPGl |andpetitioner'sopp0rtBiMtytoad<lu<} Shri Majumdar, IfiMned coHn^rfappearingfbr tiie p^tioner jsnbmits tiifft the petitioner only wa^ts to examine herself wAichis Inecessary for Just of this |Barlier the petitioner was granted tv^ie to exBmiae her witoess. Th« jsase was listed on 17.04^009 for rietitioner's evidaiee but due to t>navoidable circumsteaces the petiti frial court, andthereafter, oatiie sajne date, the petitioneFfiledan ^pplication ua<ler Order 17 Rule 1 <;ase birt fhe samewasrejected. Hen Having heard Iramed couasel WlfOTi^'WMf'if 1yA TfSR?TC •^SfiW 311^1 ^tion oftfae petitioner/plaiBtiff fbr adjounmtent, wa& iqectsd eherevidencewasetosed. kiase. He fHrttier submits tiiat iffler couMaotappcarbeforefte ^fCPC for adjoummest of tiie i}ethtspetiti<». ^I^earing fi>r &e petitionerand laving perused fhe records, in my o^inion, interest ofjustice would ^e sub served if the plaintifE'petijlioaer would be sfforded an i )examiBeherself. XI-HC—78 ^sf'•:??T!IRW, 0'rfl^'l^, M<'11^^< *(W<iffgfrW^ sn^T 'tRq? (•qqfgcf^iET) 311^1 W ^i'* ^%n 3??^?r ss*iicti Sahu Therefore, t&e ordw passed by an{l is aecordingly quashed, and pepttoner^)}amtiflf hCTein pays Rs. anjl appears for evideuee oa fhe neitt date as ah-eady fixed for h^ffiag by 1fae trial eowt, fhea the tijial court stedl penait her to adiduce her evideace inthe cowt an4 fliereaflsr llietrial eourtshall '^tiwafsg aii^ii ^ pr()ceed to decide tfae suit ia aecordan< re^pondents hereia feel some grievaiu m^ve appFopriate applieation before thi^ eowt. Witii the above observation a^d (lirection this petition is allowedandtiieordCTdated 17.04.20^ N4> order asito costs. tt>i<<[<i1^1 •tiW^tf f^^ 'tT.tt-^.R '^affOTSn^I lie teial eourt desei-vesto be [t is direeted Aat if the /-as costs to th«respondeat ;e wMh law. However, ifthe e thea they are at lifeerty to ? (Aanexure P/t) is quaAed. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge