^! s ss^ IN THE HIGH CQURT OE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHl WRIT PETITION N0. 1-SB3 72005 PETITIONER Plaintiff Srmt. Bedkunwar, W/o Late. Dhananjay, aged about 43 years, R/o Village - Halahuli, Tahsil and Police - Station Kharasia, Distt. Raigarh, (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS Defendeants Q, o "? '^..^r^ ./^•€>'^ ^e^ ^ ^{ ^<'^ 'y^'^ <^ Setram, S/o Ram prasad, aged about 45 years, R/o Village- Halahuli, Police Station and Tahsil- Kharasia, Distt. Raigarh, (C.G.) Laxhman Prasad, S/o Ransay, aged about 70 years, R/o Village - Halahuli, Police Station and Tahasil- Kharasia, Distt.- Raigarh, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .......^" I.'^"'11 ^l. <%w^^ ^-. ^\\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetitionNo. 1583 of2005 luuwi. PETITIONER Plaintiff RESPONDENTS Defendants Smt. Bedkunwar Versus Setram & another WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'bleMr. N.K. Asarwal, J.) Present : Shri Dashrath Prajapati, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakhshi, Advocate for respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 05.04.2011) 1. Theinstantpetitionisdirectedagamsttheorderdated21.03.2005 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge, Class-I, Raigarh, in Civil Suit No. 104-A/2002, whereby the petitioner's application filed under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC to adduce further evidence has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are: plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction against the defendants. On 16.10.2004 plaintiff appeared before the court along with her witnesses Pandulal and Budhwa Ram Yadav and filed their affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC. As Presiding Officer was on leave, they could not be cross examined and the matter was posted for 01.11.04. On that day also the matter was adjoumed as Presiding Officer was on leave. On vs^ 24.02.2005 plaintiff was cross examined by the counsel for \^ defendants and the matter was fixed for cross examination of other witnesses. On 21.03.2005, plaintiff could not bring her witnesses as witness namely Pandulal was busy in examination duty and other witness namely Budhwa Ram was ill, and prayed for adjoumment. Prayer for adjoumment was disallowed by the trial court. Hence this petition. Considering the fact that plaintiffs witnesses were earlier present in the court, absence of plaintiffs witnesses was on account of genuine reasons, in the considered opinion of this court, at-least one opportunity should have been granted by the trial court to the plaintiff for examination of plaintiffs witnesses Pandulal and Budhwa Ram, Other party could have been compensated by imposmg costs. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, in the considered opinion of this court, the order impugned dated 21.03.2005, being not sustainable in law deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The trial court is directed to permit the plaintiff to produce her two witnesses Pandulal and Budhwa Ram on 02.05.2011, subject to payment ofcost ofRs. 2000/- payable to other party. Petition is accordingly allowed. No order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge