(V (?v^ .. 1.. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER [PLAINTIFF] W.P. No.3 ^^-3/2004 Subhash Chand Agrawal, S/o Shri Mange Lal Agrawal, Occupation- Business, R/o Dabhara Rqad, Kharsia, Tehsil- Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.), VERSUS <?^ '^ RESPONDENTS PEFENDANTS] .^•^ c^A^' ^^y •^yy 1. Ganesh Ram Agrawal, S/o Ram Kumar Agrawal, (Attomey) Meera Devi Agrawal. 2. Meera Devi Agrawal, W/o Ganesh Ram Agrawal, BothR/oDabharaRoad, Kharsia, Tehsil- Kharsia, District Raigarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 T^ •^ll''<l<'f''<, »fll«'is,('K'ii'yy 111CTI <ShHI«h 3^[ Tra^? ^^.P...^0.,.'2>.?-.li^ '2 ^ to^ET' sn^r^ii h'n'^ s^f ai^icti yiia 311^1 TSIIWtlf??! etii'4t<n4lTi '1Vf^ ^ ^S <9»t^i< ^srfSgH sii^i Shi-i S.N. Nande. counsdl Thc peutioner/plaiEittff llia Article 227 oi the Constituti4 order claied 28/08/2004 pasj Judge, Class-I, Raigai'h, wherij under Order 16, Riile 1 aad 21 for fhe petitioner, las prefcrTcd this writ petitiou uiidcr >n of india, bemg aggrievecl by the sed by tlie leained Additioual Civu kby the peti.tioner's appUcaUons filed aud Order 17, Rllle 1 offhe Code of Ih'll Proccdure, zvere rejcctcd. filll-I I have heard leai-iied cm of this petition. Brief facts leadine to petitioner herein filed a Civil dcclaration aad iiiiuiictioD.. issues were fi-araed aud tiie ^nsel for tlie petitioner on admission l^ng of fhis writ pefition are tliat the Suit against fhe respondents for ^fter fji.ing of thc writtea statcincats tnatter was fix-sd for evidcnce of Uie plauitiff. Froni the perusal of the it reveals tliat no list. ofwitaes ajid for thc first time ffac plamttff on 26/04/2001. impugned order right froiu adjourtiaients were grajited in&ttci petitioner lierein except exf rcinainiiig evidcncc and ulti appiication under Order, 16 witoesses. Siace no list alreadv niore fhan t«-o veai-s |im.pugned order dated 28/0.8/2004, ^es was filed on belialf of the plaiatiff ^itter was fixed for cvidence of the Thereafter, as appeai-s fi-oni tbe 111/12/2002 to 28/08/2004 nme producin.g the evidence, but the liag llimsetf failed to produce the jmatcly thc pefitioner siovcd an 1 offhe C.P.C., to suianion the was filed by the plaintiff aad pime was talcen by tfae petitioner to f<br am Rlule c,^ XI-HC-22 "3'^ •<ll'41c)''1, dTf1yll<», l«t<Ytl'Mll< sn^f^ii (<;-<i+ 311^1 5t^i^ ^lf^d ^ >«A r'.''. ^''. 3TI^T f^SK flliwi (hlicti •^ 200 fq^sr' 3ll^l ??graT ^Hf5?t -2-. Rulle produce fhe evidence, -.vhicl appUcations of the plaiiitiff provision of the Ordcr 17, evidence of fhe plaiittiff mori graated. Petitioner hereiii tij Even fhen he failed to produce Having heard leamed isgard to the facts aiid circi opinion ffi.at tlie trial Court iinproprieQ' by passiiig fiie i] fsuled to raise tbe ground is] jurisdiction bv this Court India, thcreforc, thc writ peti| stage itself. TtE luiciier Sn view of this c|rder, I.A.No.6913/2004 staiid dispo|sed of. "^i^ici^l'i 'Rm^ff ^ fe^t <i^f^R ^TSlPrn 311^1 he failed to produce, tlien the were rejected. As per amended 1 of tac C.P.C., for produciug thc |tliaa tliree adjo'umments caanot be j>ok niore tliaii nhie adjournmeats. fi.ie evideuce. cibunsel for tlie petitioner and haviiig liTCltlD.staa.ccs ot' ttic casc, I am ot' the (ias not committed aay iilega]lt<,' or mjpugned oi-der and flie petinoaer has thich warraats the exercise of the Article 227 of the Constita.ition of petiltion is dismisscd at thc ad.jiussion .W.P.No.2841/2004 aad Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo