;/•<», HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.6132 of 2011 /(50 PETITIONER/: (Defendant) RESPONDENTS/: (Plaintiffs) Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, S/o Tulsi Prasad Gupta, aged about 47 years, R/o Ramanujganj Ward No.12, Thana & Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Surguja (CG). Versus 1. Jagdish Prasad Gupta, S/o Tulsi Prasad Gupta, aged about 52 years, 2. Smt. Pushpa Devi, W/o Jagdish Prasad Gupta, aged about 49 years, Both Respondents/Plaintiffs No.1 & 2 are R/o Ramanujganj Ward No.12, Thana & Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Surguja (CG). 3. Smt. Rambha Bai, W/o Shivkumar Yadav, agsd about 31 years, R/o Ramanujganj Ward No.2, Tahsil Pal, District Surguja (CG). 4. Smt. Kamla Devi, W/o Dilip Kumar Gupta, aged about 30 years, R/o Ramanujganj Ward No.2, Tahsil Pal, Distt. Surguja (CG). 5. Smt. Shavitri Devi, W/o Late Bagar Sao, Caste Teli, aged about 60 years, R/o Bhawarmal, Thana Ramanujganj, Tahsil Pal, District Surguja (CG). 6. Smt. Indu Devi, W/o Shri Parasnath Yadav, aged about 32 years, R/o Village & Post Salwahi, Thana Basantpur, Presently residing at Ramanujganj Ward No.2, Tahsil Pal, District Surguja (CG). 7. Santosh Kumar Yadav, W/o Late Shri Ramavtar Yadav, aged about 28 years, R/o Ramanujganj Ward No.2, Tahsil Pal, District Surguja (CG). 8. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Surguja (CG) {Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Goutam Bhaduri, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Akhil Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.8, on advance copy. Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma^J 1 ORDER (19-10-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 8-8-2011 passed by the 2 Additional District Judge, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No.31- A/2011, whereby learned Additional District Judge has permitted the respondents to recall the expert to clear the evidence. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and other documents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of document, the expert has given his opinion therefore, by recalling the expert, the respondents want to fulfill the lacuna in the evidence of expert which is not permissible under the law. 4. Considering the detailed evidence of expert and the order impugned, 1 do not find any ground for interference, at this stage. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all grounds which he has raised in the petition before the Court and also at the time of final conclusion. With this observation, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 5. Consequently, I.A.No.1 also stands disposed of. Soma Sii/. T.P. Sharma Judge /