HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.1179 of 2011 PETITIONER/: (Defendant No.3) RESPONDENTS/: (Plaintiff) (DefendantNo.1) (Defendant No.2) State Bank of India, Main Branch, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur (CG), through its Assistant General Manager, Hemant Tarey, S/o Late Shri Shankar Rao Tarey, aged about 56 years. Versus Bank of Baroda, Head Office at Mandvi, Baroda and Main Branch Office at Raipur, Mahavir Goushala Commercial Complex, K.K. Road, Moudhapara, Raipur(C.G.). Harish Kumar Chhbaria, S/o Late Shri Kishin Das Chhbaria, Sole Proprietor of Firm Harish Kumar Kishin Das, doing Banking/Money lending business at Jawahar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur(C.G.). Manmohan Batra, R/o H.No.1/55/169, Priyadarshini Nagar, Near Shukla Petrol Pump, Ring Road, Dhamtari Road, Raipur (CG). Note: - The defendants No.4 & 5 are the authorities ofthe State Bank of India (petitioner herein), therefore, they are not impleaded as necessary parties in this petition. {Writ petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India} Present: Mr. B.D. Guru with Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, counsel forthe petitioner. Mr. Ashok Dubey, counsel for respondent No.1. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Nlr. T.P. Sharma. J ORDER (16-11-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 7-1-2011 passed by the 9 Additional District Judge (FTC), Raipur in Civil Suit No.lOB/2009, whereby the application filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act on behalf of respondent No.1 herein for permission to lead second evidence has been allowed. 2, I have heard learnedcounsel for the parties, perused the impugned order arrd copies of other documents. <.^•^ eiuog -l^ •^o pesodsip spue}s I.'ON-VI '^ituanbesuoQ '^ o1 •S}SOO 0} SE JSpJO ON 'A|UBLULUns pSSSILUSIp Sl U0]l!}9d sqi 'uoipipsunf /JOSiAjsdns p espjaxa ui eouQjajjeiU! Buuinbej Ai!|e6a[|! AUE peHILULUOO }OU SBL| M0|8q ijnoo eq} 'uoi)BO!|dde 94} BU!MO]|B e|!L|AA 'C M 'Vsaf