^-s-vusa '=*'?»;1^*1 ^Ani^L '.'•u• »NBLE JUSTEi iUTS^^!^!?^S^ A iATSi^Si* ?HlNei^sl^<^i ^A3H!< V/.P. N0. /'3f^"i -.?_jf>yys re 11.! uhu. S/o Shri &crshan Sahu, aged about 55 years, Occupation Dlst. Durg (C.6.) ftesident of Quart-er ^4. M^ 4 >./- No.36/F Crc-ss Sfreet No.l, Bh!la! Nagsr, Tahsll & O'st. Durg (C.6.) icror NO.I. I €J Kum, >on of Shri Bari'iyu Ram Vlshwakarma, agcd about 50 yeors, Occupation- Employee, Buliding Firemen. Fire Bridged, Bhllai Xspta Sanyantro, Bhilai Nag-ar, bist. Durg (C.6.) Resident of Quart-er No.19/0 Road No.IO, Sector No.3, Bhilai Naqar, TahsH Abist. burg(C.6.) M.r. R.S. Pate!, Au'vocate for the petitioner. Hsard on admisslon. 15» • A,{^;-. ?-^ ^uAilA.i ^.u . ,M.-^ »u. A"-A,I-fci-u <1^'5~^ ^^£ ^.i^ —/''^au. ^A:A. *A;SAW. ^-S T.u^.J;—. py Tnis periTion unasr /'fTicie e-t.1 OT Tne LonsTiTUTion OT -i-naia Tne. pctttioncr h^s i^npu^ned the order doted 7.2.2CN38 (Annexure P-1) p'^s^d In Civli Suit No.l3-B/06 whereby the 7*^ Additional District Judgs (FTC), bura has rejected the appHcations of the petitloner filed under Order 16 Ruie 5 of CPC & Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC. A -E--L - r.TTBf rusal of the Impugned order it is observed that initlally the ilaintiff exoTnined flve wltnesses in support of hls case and closed his evidence on 17.7.2007. Ther-eafter, de !so closed his evidence on 5.9.2Ci07. iubsequently, on the appllcation of the plaintiff the matter was agdn fixed for recordlng of evidence on 18.9.2007 and the plaintiff was permitted to examine three of his; witnesses thereafter he closed hls evidence.. )efendunt was also d his witnesses. inus. a< opporfunity, who ciosed his uft'er examining ity was already given to the parties to their ev'tdence. Even thereafter, the petttioner moved an application and submitl'ed thut he wa'rt's to excmine three addltiona! witnesses in his fawur cnd in circumsi'arice.s the court' below re.jected the application filed by the petitioner under Ofder 16 Rule 5 of CPC. Thereafter, the petitioner by filing an applicution under- Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC prayed for permissiwi to udduce documentary" evidence and recordina of evidence. which CT'as also wa1^ IXfi ^'K rejected by the court- with m observation thut similar applicffi-ion was preferred by the petitioner on 5.9.2GW and the same was rejected as not lr€sSgu. After going through the impugned order, I am of the opinion thut then Is no itlegaSity or jurisdictiona! error committed by the court be!ow which warrants interference in the exercise of jurlsdiction undar Articte 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition being devoid of any aibsttmce deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is hereby di.smigsed at the admission stage itself. Consequently, I.A. No.i also stands dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ra. .,'