•}- BSI HI^ CCURTOFCHHATriS^RH:ATBILASPU8 ^ss&iSSfS^ ;i-^l^^^^^ ^Ss^SS^iM wss SINSLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHKI JA6DISH BHAU^, Ag. C j Writ Petition (O No. 7344 of 2007 2. Maniram S/o. Dayal Satywansh] si9ed obout 40 years. . Sheshrom S/o Dcyal Sortyavanshi aged aboyt 38 y'ear's Both are R/o Viltatie - Bodala Tahsil- Kowsrdha E>istpict-Kabir'dhans C.@. Versus 1. „* 2. <fi. 5. A. Faguram S/o 5hri Oayal Satanvanshi aged about 47 years Vi!!cge - Bodaia Tehsil - Kawarciha, District—Kabirdham (c.s.5 Budhhu 5/o Sewak aged 40 years occypation agr'icuiture. Prem S/o Sukhiram aged 80 years oceupationttgpieuiture. Pydre S/o Sewak <ged 75 years oceupation Agricuitiire Respondent No.2to4 are R/o. Vitloge- Bodala Tohsll-Kuwardha Distriet- Kabirdham (C.S.) Dayal S/o Sukhiram (Since daceased) Toran Bal W/6 Kalpu Bhartendu aged 52 y'esrs R/o Pandoria presently resident C/o Ksipu Bhartendu bistrict Public Prosecutor DiStriet eourt - Rqjncndgaon (C.6.) Tar Boi W/o Kadhiram cged 45 yeaps R/o Neor Moha9aon Viiiage - TaitQpara, Tahsil - Pandaria Distt. ICabirdhcm. C. Tara Bai W/o Khelawan i^ed 42 yein-s !?/o Villcge - Hcrdi KhektQt'a, Tctetl -^ Pandariabistt.Kabirdham. ^ ; :^^%1 ^W3fi:ir^Pri£Eti^^tfrt'^^?^ati i"~- •^gs^&^^^^. 2. D. Moti Bai W/oHeeraaaed 28 years ft/o Setgongo, P.S. Kunda, Ta}isi! -.Pandcu'ia Distt.Kabirdham . 6. Bhagwanta S/o Sukhiram aged65years Occupatlon Cultivator' R/o Viiiags Bodolc Tohsil <& District - Kabir'dham. 7. Smt. Yashoda Bai W/o tioyal aged65 yeard R/o Bodaia TahsEI & C)istr-ict Kabirdham l^- ^ 8. Salik S/o Pyarelat aged 52 year-s 8/0 VWage Bodaia Tahsi! 1& &Estrict — Kabirdham 9. Bbuict S/o Prem aaed 38 year-s R/o Vi1!ge Bodaia Tasii & &igtrict - Kabirdham 10. Kumar S/o R/o Viilge Kabirdham Bhagwanta cged 36 year-s Bodaia Tasi! <& District - ^L 11. State of Chhattisgarh, TTirough Collector Kabir'dhsm. District Kabirdham (C.©.) Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Present; Shri AJitSingh, counselfor thepetitioners. (Passed on 12 &ecelnbei', 2007) This writ petition is fi!ed against the order dated 22-11-2007 contained in Annexur'e P/6. According to the petitioners they have been deprived of examinin9 the witnesses on the ground that they havs ciready been afforded four oppor-tunities for adducing the evidence.. This contention is not correct. From the perusal of the impu9ned order it is crystal clear that the petitioners failed to ^^^SSSgii^^^^E. submit the list of witnesses which shoutci hove been cione by them before the evidence cou!d start. Noother points have been raiSed in this petition. Accordingty, no inter'fet'ence is warranted in the impU9nedorder andthe petition isaccordingly dismissed. Sd/- Ag.Chief Justice -A-