IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BII,ASPUR % WRIT PETITION (227) No.r^ ^f / 2011 ^' :: • • PETITIONER Ajay Patle aged about 30 years, S/o A Non appl\c^it N^:'^ ^..Patle, R/o Village Beltukri, Thana and >>^Mf3^" ^ '. ' " ' ;°.-<<<'fiA^""' ...^"Yahsil Baloda, Distt. Janjgir Champa '..•"•^ ...-^^' ^^ ^- ..."••,.*-' Respondents Applicant i- ^ Non applicant 1, 2. Insuer 3. Versus Kamal Narayan Sahu, Aged about 23 years, S/o Late Ramgulam Sahu, By Caste Sahu, R/o Village Khisora, Thana and Tahsil Baloda, Distt. Janjgir Champa Mahendra Kumar Patle, aged about 32 years, S/o Tikathram Patle, R/o Village Beltukri, Thana and Tahsil Baloda, Distt. Janj'gir Champa I.CJ.CJ. Lamboard General Insurance Company Ltd. Bilaspur ;^^ WRIT PETITIOH UNDE'fe ARTICLE 227 OF_TH® CONSTITUTION OF ZNDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetition (227)No. 3171 of2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : Ajay Patle VERSUS Kamal Narayan Sahu & others "\- fWRIT PETITION UNDER ARrHCLE 227 OF THE CONSTTTUTIQNX)FINDIA) tSB: Hon'Me Mr. N.K. Aearwal, J.) Present : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 28.06.2011) Heard on admission. 1. The instant petition, filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India calls in question the legality and propriety oforder dated 07.05.2011, passed by Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 77/10, whereby and whereunder the application filed by respondent No. 3/Insurance Company for further cross examination ofclaimants' witness was allowed. 2. Respondent No. 3^nsurance Cofiipany, by filing application under Section 138 ofthe Evidence Act, prayed for further cross examination of witness Kamal Narayan Sahu and Yograj Pandey on the ground that vital questions were not put to the witnesses with regard to their specific defence taken in written statement that the vehicle is private vehicle and was being used as a Taxi at the time ofaccident. 3. The trial court allowed above application vide order impugned dated Q7.05.2011. ^\ ^—•^; 4. Shri Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit under Section 138 of the Evidence Act such order cannot be passed and despite objection raised by the petitioner the order impugned has been passed by the trial court which is per se illegal and deserves to be set aside. 5. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner and pemsed the order impugned. Under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC, if vital questions were not put to the witnesses due to lapse of counsel, witnesses can be again cross examined. Further, mentioning ofwrong provisions will not debar the court to grant relief. In view of above, the trial court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing order impugned warranting interference of this court under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. 6. It is vvell settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisoryjurisdiction under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where pen^ersity, illeg^lity, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 7. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- H. K. Agarwal 3udae Sahu