'(^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No. 5152 of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Lal Quleshwar Singh S/o Udit Narayan, aged about 56 years, resident of Rajmahal Family ward Khairagarh, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon C.G. (Defendantno.1) Versus 1. Vinod Kumar Jha S/o Late Hemdutt, aged about 60 years 2. Prasanna Kumar Jha S/o Late Hemdutt, aged about 54 years 3. Anil Kumar Jha S/o Late Hemdutt, aged about 52 years 4. Manoj Kumar Jha S/o Late Hemdutt, aged about 48 years 5. Prabhat Kumar Jha S/o Late Hemdutt, aged about 46 years 6. Ashok Kumar Jha S/o Late hlemdutt, aged about 40 years 7. Smt. Chandraprabha Devi Widow of Hedutt, aged about 76 years The Respondent No. 1 to 7 are resident of Village Mawati Bazar Road, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon C.G. (Respondent no. 1 to 7 are Plaintiffs) 8. Sanad Kumar S/o Late Abhiman Singh, aged about 50 years 9. Yashwant Singh S/o Late Abhiman Singh, aged about 46 years 10. Sunita D/o Late Abhiman Singh, W/o Jugli Bahadur Singh, aged about 44 years 11. Suruchi D/o Late Abhiman Singh, aged about 42 years 12. Chhaya D/o Abhiman Singh, aged about 40 years 13. State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector Rajnandgaon C.G. 14. Dilip Kumar Jha S/o Hemdutt Jha, aged about 38 years 15. Jayanti Thakur W/o Shri V.V. Thakur, Advocate 16. Smt.VeenaThakurWidowofA.N. Thakur Respondent no. 8 to 16 except respondent no. 13 are resident of Village Khairagarh, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon C.G. (Respondent no. 8 to 16 are defendants) Writ Petition (227) No. 51S2 of2009 Writ Petition ufldeLArtici&227 of the Constitution of India Apoearance: Mr. Rakesh Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (10.09.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard. The petitioner/defendant No.1 has filed this writ petition underArticle 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of order dated 26.8.2009 passed in Civil Suit No. 28A/91 by the Civil Judge, Class-l, Khairagarh, whereby, an application filed by the plaintiff(3) under Order XVI Rule 1 (3) has been allowed and the plaintiff(s) have been permitted to call their witnesses. It appears that on an early occasions, the plaintiff(3) did not file a list of these witnesses whom now they want to cal! in support of the case, therefore, they had an occasion to file an application underOrder XVI Rule 1 (1)(3)ofC.P.C. Order XVI Rule 1 (3) C.P.C. provides that The Court may, for reasons to be recorded, permit a party to call, whether by summoning through Court or otherwise, any witness, other than those whose names appear in the list referred to in sub-rule (1), if such party shows sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the said list. The leamed trial Judge has observed that the lands of these persons are situated near the suit land, the plaintiff(3) evidence has not begun so far, therefore, even if some delay has been caused, the application has to be allowed and then allowed the application by imposing cost of Rs.100/- on the plaintiff(8). On due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, 1 do not find any substance in this petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. . Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge vatti