HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER/ Defendant RESPONDNBNT Plaiatfcff W.P. (2271 No. 3885 of 2011 Laxiaan Yadav, S/o Shri Gandarai, aged about 55 years^ R/o Village Siagpuri, Post -BaradoU, TahsU- Pussorc, Distorict Ra^arh (C.G.). VERSUS Brijmohan Agrawal, S/o Kalicharaa Agrawal, aged about 58 years, R/o Daiiipara, Raigarh, P.S. Kotwali, Tahsil & Distnct Raigarh (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLB 227 OF THB CON8TITUTION OF INDIA. (8B :Hon>bIe Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondent not notice. QRAL- ORDBR (Passedon 20/07/2011) 1, By fhis petition under Article 227 of tiie Constitutioia of India petitioner has challenged fhe legality and propriely offhe order dated 5/7/2011 passed by First Additional Distriet Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 38-A/2011 whereby opportunity of evidence of petitioner/defendaat has been closed on fhe ground ftiat defendaat has taken ample opportunily, On 5/7/2011 he was absent on fhe ground of iUness but he has not filed aay medical cerdficate, 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard. 3, Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner submits fhat previously case was fbced for 6/5/2011 on fhat day defendaat/petitioner along with his witnesses have filed evidence on affidavit thereafter at the request of plahitijff c^se was adjouraed for 21/6/2011, On 21/6/2011 agam case was adjoumed for 5/7/2011 aad on 5/7/2011 order impugned has been passed by Court below, 4. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner further subxnits fhat case is fixed for 21/7/2011 for final hearing. f^. t-Q^ /€^^ 1 "S%1 \,^y 5. Order dated 6/5/2011 & 21/6/2011 rcveal that first adjoumment was at the mstanice of respondent aad second was provably at fhe request of petitioner and fhereafter appUcation for adjouniment of only witaess petitioner i.e. defendant was sought on fhe ground of illaess which has been denied. No notice has been issued to the respondent. This is case of 2001, Coiirt is serious for early disposal ofthe case. 6. Considenng fhe aforesaid facts, again issuing notice to respondent for hearmg would be futile exercise and would be unnecessary, aad it would lead to adjoumment of the case pending before fhe trial Court. Considenng fhe fact fhat one opportunity of exammation to defendant would be just and proper whUe closing fhe case on the ground fhat ample opportuiiity ofadducixig the evidence of defendant has alneady been granted, Court below has committed iUegaUly, Consequently, petition is atlowed subject to payxnent of cost of Rs« 1,000/- withm 7 days froni today before fhe torial Court to the respondent or before fhe evidence ofpetitioner. 7, Petitioner is directed to reinaia present for his exaiaiiiatioii on 21/7/2011. f .———~ 1 Certified copy today, | T.P. Sharma Judge f^