RI? mig‘igg kg x9 3% 9f 29G? Yxsi'gm ?;asazi gig Shy; Na Rag} $gaw aggd £33911: 4 year‘s 9E1§Ti91¥Egs /2 Sgbhash ma; €429 gar; m35ygars g K6§Lh§g§ra Lg gig W W R§§ ggam agd am 5 W A m § Q $§¥gsaé§n§9§ Waiék i2 Sai$ $ahs£ 331$ mag; \ ‘Jgggrghazggaglg; A3EFE§§A§$$ 9&3. 2 TQ 4.} Vargas /3 RmAvw ,wdam5Q 'yeays S32; §km Kama Ram Agawal mmfafmi‘; 3‘a42sxi Saki; Distant Jaggg: Shagga gXé; {?LA§MI§‘F§ / Qaya Eaza ,agaéabmg55 W Sga Sim isiaiim Rag; W, rf'a Saki; Tm \ 3kt; WW Qhmga s: , G W . g ‘ RE§PQ§§E¥§$§: {ggygxggm m) in; /«a r w'gag aga;r ahauxka , WfQRWAgwal rg’g/ vgiage gm Em w, WM§€M$$G§ {awwmmgégi :Sarga Ba; , aé amt 3Q ygazg, Wg'g a rfg mm: gemi Tam: Kama, gm: ifgrha {13G} I ‘ @EFgNmTxg gsgi/ WRIT PETiTiQK UN§ER ARTIQLE WQE’? Q? TQE WKEV 9F iNDE W , 3 a W k ‘HC 78 mW,Wla,W c1 u. § ‘ (NP(L?-_9’) Nb‘33/3 ‘ mm W am 311%: Wu? m$m ‘ 260 ‘3 Wmm mmrrc?if§fsér€m' i § i $amwm 5.8. Hon’blerShri Justice N.K. Agarwal € 21 -08-2009 Smt. Renu Kochar, coun I for the petitioners. Shri Y.C. sharma, couns I far respondent No.1. Heard. 2. The instant petition is irected against the order dated 29-06-2009 in Civil Suit No.2 A/2002 passed by Civii Judge, Class-l, Sakti, District Janjgir- hampa whereby and whereunder the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under OHper 17 Rule 1 of C.P.C. and closed the opportunity of adducing thelevidence of two witnesses and the case was closed for final arguments. 3. Smt. Renu Kochar, learn d counsel for the petitioners wouid submit that the defendants had already filed affidavits under Orders 1B C.P.C. of those two witnes es and only cross-examination by the plaintiff is left and in the int est of justice one more opportunity may be afforded to the petiti hers/defendants to produce their witnesses for cross-examinatio by the plaintiff. l: 4. ln reply, Shri Y.C. Shar a learned counsel for respondent would submit that if an opportgtinity is granted to the petitioners, ”l \ _ WWW ‘ll l l . :_ mEa. g.a W mmf‘mw‘ ammm WW,W i 5UP (2,23%)Ng 335 ‘ WW 20G C7 mm (Ww) ‘ WW3Wtfaé§H r'L/ ‘agwm é then it should be a last opportu Ety and that too subject to payment of heavy cost by the petttloners y L ”for th parties and havrng peruded the record in the opinion of this r :>Courtgthat one opportunity ough to have afforded to the petitioners to produce their two Witnesses hlch were not cross-exammed by the respohdéititiplaintiff on acco nt of their absence on 29-06-2909 subject to'payment of cost of s.2000i—. Therefore, it is directed that subject to payment of cos of Rs,2000/-, the trial Sourt shall permit the petitionersldefendan s to produce their above referred r> two witnessesfor cross-exami f Havmg conSIdered the stxbmtssmns of the teamed counsel tion by the plaintiff/respondent on a date which may be fixed by it! and thereafter, the trial Court shall proceed to decide the suit in ccordance with law expeditiousty preferably within a period of thr e months. 6. With the above direction, he petition is disposed of. 7. Certified copy as per rule+. d/ N K Agarwal Judge i ’f t W ‘ S-