IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAITISGARH AT BILASPUR SINQLE BENCH W.P.(U/A 227) No. % ¥ ’L /2011 / PETITIONER Smt. Indu Bai, W/o. Dauwa DEFENDANT No.1 Prasad Dubey, aged about 68 years, R/o. Village Suma, Post Suma, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1] Mahesh Kumar, S/o. Ramanand PLAINTIFF " Sharma, aged about 57 years, R/o. Village' Fingeshwar, Tahsil Rajim, District Raipur (C.G.) 2] State of Chhattisgarh, through: Collector, Raipur (C.G.) ....(Defendant no.2) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Pl'ashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petiiion (227) No. 872/2011 PETITIONER : Smt. Indu Bai Versus RESPONDENTS : Mahesh Kumar and another Appearance: ShriManoj Paranjpe and Shri Gurudev I Sharan, counsel for the petitioner. Shri RR. Sinha, Panel Lawyer for the Stéte7fespondent No.2. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (14.02.2011) Suit between the parties was allowed by the Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 22nd September, 2009, however first appeal preferred by petitioner was allowed on the ground that the learned Trial Court has not recorded any fmding on additional issue which was framed on 2/02/2009. The Appellate Court remanded the matter for decision afresh on all issues. (2) On remand the plaintiff did not wish to examine any witness afresh. The petitioner/defendant moved an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC for permission to re—examine plaintiff’s witnesses. ‘l This application has been rejected by the Trial Court. i (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in View of g, . the remand order learned Trial Court was obliged to give opportunity a to cross examine Witnesses ofthe plaintiff. r M (4) On perusal of the appellate judgment whereby the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court it would appear that the Appellate Court has not set aside findings recorded by the Trial Court while decreeing the suit by its judgment dated 22nd September, 2009. The plaintiff did not wish to examine any new witness or to re-examine witnesses which were earlier examined. It is also to be seen that the remand order was passed only on the ground that the issue regarding valuation was not decided by the Trial Court. (5) In view of the above, the Trial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for cross examination/re— examination of the plaintiffs witness. Present is not a case for interference in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge w