HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSQ&RH AT BIfcASPOR SB :HOH'BtE SHRI JUSTICE PRITIKKBR DIW^iER ^! W.P. N0. (2271 4877/2008 PBTITIONBRS 1. Ramesh S/o. Qovmd, aged Plaintifis • aboQtriearabQut35years 2. Gbpal S/p.: Govind, aged iabout ae0Tiabcnita48 years^^ 3. •Naiutlal, IS/o.. govuid; .aged abou;t:iiear aboiri; 42 years 4. i^^Visteyajaafh S/Q. Govmd,;aged ^;a3boutiiear aBout 4S years ;• . ' T...; 5.^-;::,;SB3tt.'^arabai, Wd./o..Sov^ laged ^afoout !neaT about 65 years i 6. RajuSaijan S/o. Late Soviidd, aged about near about -41 •yeais'' ' • • : : :". ^ '• 7'.,;.i;:ShantK • Bai, •»<a./<K ^|;,y i^faroslignkar, ^ .aged abwit. 39:: ' 8u:.^)^NMa^&er,.^j^.rS/o..::i^;^^ •^.si;^i|ffs}i^naT, i ^agea.! ;:abou;t;t^:I9|| •:^syeai9.'::. ^ ^l :1 ^:'i:.."i ' 9.i.:- 'Gautam,, ; ! ...S/o.'.-.,:? ;;LatE'|; ^SIuffsMaaar, ; a^d about 18| 'ycars;, , ' : ' • • , ' - ::] 10. ^^almJV:;S/ o. iLafe ;S]ai»sKaaar,, .";^^ageid::;aB0uf.:l|Kyears,.flirougb.^| ' - •';^'TitiM|i^m^tu.ral^^' gaaidiaa./iaiBl:tier ; ,,^Sliaata»8B,; :^:i '|u,,,,: :. ,%ffl/oi 31. •^SBwsliaakar, 1 aged:: abouti: 99 i' ^:^,yE8EESi,!!l^-i^.?''i';^^l':;' ' ..i'V'.:" ;'; ^!A]]|r;ab(tye,;,lresi(fent of'iSaaai,;; :..^e}iiiMiyB.HPoiice ' : '''Stajaott :|!| ^ Mil -s :i.1;'ll Ambikapur, Mayapur, Ambikapur, District Suiyija (CG) RESPOSDBNTS Versus t. 2; 3. Ajay Kashyap S/o. Madan Kashyap, aged about 30 years Saajay Kashyap S/o. Madan Kasbyap aged about 27 years Riak-u Kashyap, S/o. Baijiiatli Kashyap,ia^d^ abouil; 25 yeara AU abow resideut of Daraipara,.A3mbibapur, distnct Surga]a(eG) Aty^preseiit R/o. Bhatapaia Ambikapur District WRIT BBTITRaN UNDElfcAiR'HGlA 227 OF THE JBOiNS'raTO'HCMlOFIKDIA Shri Vaibliiay Goverdhan., cbunsel forthe petitioners. Shn Suiull'npaftu, counsel for fhe respondents. ORM,®R1EMBR {09.04.2009} ChaBenge in this writ petilion is the orfler dated 27.6.2008 passed by the Poiirth Ciyfl Judge Class-II, Ambikapur, District Surguja whereby the Court below has closed the opportunily of the petitioiiers/plauitiffs to lead furfher evidence. •^The contentipn ofthe petitipners are that the evidence cannot be leadjlicnigh the PF was^paid,butthe expeases feir siimmoning the witoesses coold:inot be paid diie fe inadvertence and iurtherthe ^t^&atfheplSiati^wereiu^ aware as to how lauch has tb be gaid. He subiuits &at n6 •ii!;'9 IH prejudice is going to cause if orie inore opportunity is glven to ttiem. for sumiaoniag thewitEiesses. " On the other haad, Shri Tripaflli, leamed counsel for the respondeats vehfimenfly opposes fhe petition and supports the onlerimpugned. Lookuig tQ ttie facts anfl circumstauces of the case, in thc interesf ofjtis^e, no bardsfaip wpuM bg c^sed?tf more oppoi'tunity would "be given to the plaiatifis ftir doiag ::fhfi: needful.1'.'.•..• :' • •: - : : :. . , '•:^;:.: ";j ^I%anied;cojuiKel,^s1±i&:^eHtiG^rs^sutoimfs;' 'has ^already :been;;paM;.a]|ff?1iK%»emBai^ dQiie,will,l)e dpne va.'Qie^'a^et^SsS^SgSiEaaiig, :,;,: /,,J;:T. ':^; |?^ In fhe resutt, .tliej extent. The^C^urt feelow iS^igi:re@ffi(I|^lpiQee^ furU^ ;t|i9ti^aUowed.. to ftie;^aboye|^ Pri Sd/- tinterDiwaker ^ Judge m SiFU •..^•i