B c ^ ^^-/' IIU'HE HJGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C.No. S//n Applicant : / / ^ ^.-^^ ^yy ^.-y-- ^fcA^" ..-> Shravan Kumar S/o Shri Itwar Singli, Caste Kharia (Adivasi) aged about 39 years, R/o Power House Roady Korba ^•^i ^^ >^%" ,i..-" XRespondents At present residence at Khan's Hut Opposite Vishwakarma Fumiture Power House Road,; Korba, Tahsil & District Korba (C.G.) Versus 1) Sardar Kashmira Sin^i, a^ed about 39 jears S/o Shri J.Singh R/o ,Villa^e Ghoordeva, Bankimongra Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) R-eseiit residence Gunmaoak Engineerin^ Works Opposite Sweta Nursing Home, Stadium Road, Korba(C.G.) ^ State of Chhattisgarh Through the Collector Korba^ District- Korba (C.G.) Cl<i7j^(o APPUCATION FOR Rfee^0:. THE ORDER DATED 30/04/2D09 PASSED INTHEWRIT PETITION (2271 N0.3108/2008 POR EXTENSION OF TIME SHRAVAN K-UMAR VBRSUS SARDAR KASHIMIRA SINGH AND ^ @ ANOTEHR ORDER PASSED BY THE JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKAR ON DATED 13/~04/2009. t^ IK^^ HIQH <X>I?RT OP CHHATN8GARH AT BILA8PUR 8B:HQM*BLBMR.JUSnCBPmTINKI^DlW^lB^^ M.C.C.110.03/2010 APPLICANT RB8POKDBNT8 yersus Shravan Kuxnar Sanlar KasfaiEdira Siagh & Another Shri S,V.Pinx>hit, counsel for tihie appUcant. Shri M.P,S,Bhatia, coiuxsel for rcspondent No, 1. ShriVaibhav Goverdhan, P,L. forfhe State/resp. No. 2 APPLIC^TION POR BaCTBNSION OP TIMB IN THB OWmR DATED 30.4.2009 PASSED IN THE W.P. (2271 N0. 3108/08 ORDER (06.07.2010) The present petition has been filed by the applicaixt seeking e^xtension oftime for adduciiig fhe evidence. It has been fiiled piirsuaat to fhe order dated 30,4.2009 passed by this Court iu W.P.(227) No. 3108/08 (Aimexure A/3), whereby last opporttmily was given to fhe plaintfcfffor adduciag his evidence- 2. Coatention of fhe counsel for the applicaat is that m conipHance of fhe order passed by this Court, tfae applicarit/plaiatifiF had ffled requisite affidavit under Order 18 Riite 4 of ffae Code of CivU Procedure but aUL hte witoaeases could not be exaiaiaed because on a particular date ie< on 5.11.09 the plaintiffwas sick, He subinits that one morc opportuiaity be given to fhe plaiatiff fi>r adducing fhe evidence of rcmaitimg witaesses. 3. This appUcation has been seriousty opposed by Shri Bhatia and it has been argued by hi-m that fhe present M.C,C. is not xxiaintainable ia fhe eye of law, He submits fhat a fiFesh order has been passed by ffae Court below and ftosrefore the petitioner ought to have challenged fhe same ia tfae appfopriate forum aiid fhus, fhe same m its present form, is not maiatainable. ^'^,^%^?^3|i|:l?lij@lljjlll^ 10l: : M 4. I have heard counsel for fhe parties and perused fhe rccoxxl. 5. The factual matrix of fhe case is fhat ia a sziit filed toy the appMcant/plaintiff on 29,3.08 an order was passed by fhe learaed Civil Judge Class I, Korba whereby fhe ri^bt to adduce evidence of the plaintiff was closed aad it waa directed for rccordmg the evidence of the defe3idants< This oxder was chaBenged by fhe petitioner before fhis Court ia W.P,(227) No. 3108/08 aad m fhe lax^er iaterest ofjustice this Court has passed fhe order in favour of the applicaiit/plamtiff permittmg him to adduce evidence and the rclevant pordoii of fhe order reads as iiiider: "I have heaid counsel for fhe respective parties and also penised the records, Tfais Court is of the considered opinioa fhaf ia fhe lai^er iaterest of justice^ last opportiiaity shaU be glven to tlie plamtiffto adduce his evidence. The Court below will giwe one fixed date to fhe plaiatiff for adduciag his evideace. Tfae plaintiff wfll ffle afBdavit of fhe witoesses under Order 18 Rule 4 of fhe Code of Cw& Procedure wifhia a period of tea days firom today. The witnesses shall rcmain present on fhe date as may be fixed by the Coiirt aad no adjoumment will be sought for by fhe plamttff in aay circumstaaee. In fhe rcsult, the petition succeeds sixbject to payment of cost of Rs. 500, to fhe defendaiite m the Court below." 6, Recoid reflects fhat fhough ttie plaiatiff has filed ffae affidavits ofhis witnesses under Order 18 Rule 4 offhe CPC bixt has not completed his evidence. On 11.5.2009 the Court below has taken the affidavit of ffae plaintiff and his witaesses on record aad fhercafter oai 3.10,09 some of tfae evidence of fhe plaia^tiiff 's witaesses was recorded and it was ordered tiiat the evidence of fhe remaiaiag witaesses of the plamtiff would be .<^-". .^' ^ '- "^, fl \ VK h:^^ :>-^^ ;oS" recorded on 8.10.09» On S.lO.OQy evidence ofone niore Witoiess of the plaintiflT was recorded and fhe case was directed to be listed on 5.11.2009 and on that date, fhe plaisitiffwas dirroted to keep present On 5.11.09, appUcatioa was JBled by the plamtiff under Order 17 Rule 1 of tifcte Code of Civil Procedurc mentionmg m it that the plaiatifif is suffermg fix>m fesver and therefore fhe case be adjoumed as he is not ia a positfoa to produce his witaesses, This appUcatioii was reject^i by fhe Court below on tiie same day aad it has been furfher observ^d by ffae court below tliat the right of ffae plaiatiff to adduce furfher evidence is closed and tfae defeadaxit was directedl to lead his evidence on fhe next date< 7. After ininutety goiag fhrough fhe documents, fhis Court is of tfae coaasidercd opioion fhat fhe oider impugned is stdctly m accoidance wifh law aad fhere is no iofinaiity ia tfae saixie, EarUer a very specific oxder was passed by this Coxirt on 30.4,09 and it appeare fhat fhe applicaBt/pfcriiitifftook the aaid onler in a veiy casual maiuier and has faited to produce his witeesses as directed by tiiis Coiirt» On 5.11.09, if fhe appUcant/plamtiff was not well fhen tds witeesses oxight to have remaiiied present before fhe Court aad tfhis ia e^pecially when the son of fhe plaiiitiff was present ia fhe Couirt and ffaierefore fhe order is fully justt&ed. 8. Por fhe foregomg reasoiis, fhe preseat M.C<C, beixig wifhout substaace fcs Uable to be dismissed and is accoxdmgfy dismissed, The trial Court is directed to expedite ttie proceedmgs and to decide fhe siiit as expeditioixsly as pc^sible. Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge