HIGH CGURT OF JUDICkTURE AT Bi‘LA$PUR, CHHATTISGARH S!N§LE EENSH: HGN’BLE 5HRI SR. NAYAK, SJ. WRIT PETlTiQN NO£243 OF 2905 Present; Mr. Raja Sharma. learned munge! for the petitiener. Ms. Madhu Modi. learned counsel for the respondent5. 9RAL OR§ER/ (Parsrred 0n 12‘ January, 2006) The pétitionér is fhe pfairrfiff. The case was sef taut irefare’ the rial Ju&ge or: 18/10I2SG5 for plaintiffs avidence. On 18/1 0/2005 the setlrlcnérfplalntlfr hlm$elf appeared before {he trial Caurr‘ in perscn and moved an application (Annexure—PM) ior adjournment on the ground that he was suffering fmm viral lever and he wee net in a pesitlcrn ta give extidence. Learned trial Judge refused the adjournment and closed the evidence of the piaintiff on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff had PETITIONER Bhushanlat Rathére. Sfc Lafe PLAINHFF Ramratan Rathore Aged abagt 62 years, RIO H. Na. 214’460, Ramsagar Para Ward Raipur Vs. RESPONSEI‘QW 1 . Rampyari Rathore Wdfo Lafe QEFENDATNs Ramkishan, Age No! Kncwn R/c Jawahar Nagar Ward Rathoré-Chowk Raipur 2. Jitendra Kumar Rathore, Age About 34 Yrs‘ 3. Mukesh Rathore, Age About 28 Yrs. 2&3 are S10 Late Ramkiahan Rathore 4. Raepchaml Rathore $Io Late Ramraiaix Rafhoreg Age Ab. 64 yr 5. Dilip Rathore. Sig Ragpchand Rathors Aga Ab. 32 Yr. 2 to 5 are R/o Near Prabhat Talkies. Raipur (C.G.) be wanted iri terms 0f i‘ne pravfao to order 17 Ruke ? uf the CPC.’ The arder cf the Earned ma! Judge dees not refiect the #aw ex Court in the case of Sale Assuciation, correcfiy a5 :aié down by the Ap Tamil Nadu Vs, Unign of indiai. The Supreme Gem: in Gouid not step into the witness box and give evidence on 18/10/2005. Tfie Ieaméd friaf Judge is not justifi petiiien and set aside the Order of n the writ petition and aliow the eppiication {Annexure-PM) as prayed for. piamtiff. in the resuit, i aiiow the wrif éd iii closirwg thé evidence 6f tiie . Sdl- Chief Jusu‘ce > 1. AIR 2005 SC 3353