c^ IN THE aiGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BttASPVR Wr'it Petition Bo. 16 4-4-of 2004/^ PETITIONER >1 y m RESPOBDENTS ^^y^/" •;.r.^^o.^;^\ - ^0' "'L '3n1\"^ \ K_ 2. t-^^"'^" x^^' '^. " ^- Raiaphal S/o Ronha, aged 55 yrs. By caste Gond,J3ccupation Agricul -turist, R/o Village Barbuspur, P.S. & Tah. Pratappur, District Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS (U-l Suhani D/o Dirpal aged 60 years, By caste Gond, Occupation Agricul ^- -turist, R/o Village Barbuspur, P.S. 8s Tah. Pratappur, District Sarguja (C.G.) •-r^. ^^ State of Chhattisgarh Through CoIIector, Sarguja Ambikapur Distt. Sarguja (C.G.j PETITION UBDER ARTICLES 2:27 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA . FOR ISSV&SCBfXF SUITABLB IHRECTIONS* ORDERS OR wRrrs incLUDiniG WRTTS iir THE NATURE OF| CERTIORARI, MAMDAaiTOS ETC. i The hiuinble petition of the petitioner above riained ^ v nys^WWssss sifffs^s^KssKSi^ -•;''\':^-^^;'^''' ^^';^-£y'^®^^^^^>^ XI-HC-22 XI-HC-22 <m^TqiT fqli?f) -011^ »*<ict) 'yt?n '\-- -3?g^HRB(. ^•dl'y'l^ftictwy. ;dn4 ^[•tll'c'l^sgtKRi^ctray • ".sni^T.'i.i^cby,^;::,,;;,;,^':. .- M£..!^.6.M£^-l&*i '~"'^'20(^ 11HCTI St>*ll«> ^^ss' sii^i^aiw^ifei wlth 21.09.2004- , . Shri D.N.Prajapati, counsei fo| 5hri Sunil Sinha, counsel for rjs The petitipner has preferrel 227of 1+ie Constitution of Indid bel 11.03.2003 and 12.05.2004 whereb^ fiied under Order 17 Rule 1 read been rejected by ithe Civii.Judge No.52 A/2003 (Ramphal Vs Suhduii I have heard :learned counsei A psrusal of the impugned was fixed for evidence on 16.( of the issues cihd sihce then the pej for adeiucing evidence and pn 1Q.( giyen to the petitioner. On that da^ Thereafter also the plaintiff coui{j ultirnateiy on 11.Q3.2003 the rigl' evidence wasclosed.In all, 1.1 petitioner to adduce eviden^®wherehs l/ Rule 1 of the Civii Procedure Cod tinles gdjournments, more than three tin^e that the trial C^urt while passii^g '<^l^ci4feTt^s^ ^'f^st'^^K ^<tlEtW;3!I^i thepetitioner. sspondent No.l this Writ Petitibn under Article [ng aggrieyed by the orders dated the applications of the petitioner Section 151 of the C.P.C. have [,Ckxss II, Pratappur- in Civil Suit ^others). : jor the parties. . reveal that the plaintiff's suit for the first time after framing ^itioner took several adjournments [.2003, the lasf opppntunity wds the witnesses were not present. not produce the evidence gnd t of the . petitianer to adduce ^pportunities were giyen to fhe ;, as per ths provisioris of Order di^, the Coyrt is not entjtled tjs? give in^es. As such, I gnn of Weopinion the impugned prder has naf orCers .20dl Gll XI-HC-22 •3^^IPII?H,.^^W|'»,Rle"'tf'i<- iitiOTi a><<i«i> 3ni?r 'qa^R^.,,^ ,,^^ ^';P.^O.^<A|a^ —--—————^...y^ SII^T'^I k-»'h3I^t ?t**tt<t> -yigci Padma Sff^ e<rtP!SR •^E?a committed any illegality, or iF'regL(iarity been ab!e to make.out a case for i vested in this Courf under Article 2i In view of the abov'e the is dismissed. sxnd the petitioner has, not ttvoking extra ordinary -jurisdiction '7 of The Constitution of Irsdia. pet|tion is iiable to be dismissed dnd it qiilfqECT^' •qisK.j!^ "^ Eslitfli ^•AifwN :3n^w Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge fr y Il^ ^Ha^ ^a.i| ...l^