Petitioner (Plaintiff) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (Cl No. 3070 of 2008 Smt. Rajani Katela alias Mannu Bai, aged about 62 years, W/o.B.L. Katela, Civil Lines, Raipur (CG). Versus Respondents 1. Smt. Kamla Devi, aged about 57 w/o. (Defendants) lagte Parasmal Jain, R/o. (Byron Bazar Raipur) presently R/o. Shankar Nagar, Near Water Tank, Raipur (CG). 2. Shri Subhashis Jain, aged about 38 years, S/o. Late Parasmal Jain, R/o. (Byron Bazar, Raipur) Present Address Shankar Nagar, Near Water Tank, Raipur (CG). (Writ Petition underArticle 226 of Constitution of India) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr. V.G. Tamaskar, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K. Sharma, counsel for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 14thday of January, 2009) The petitioner impugns, in the instant petition, the order dated 8-4- 2008 (Annexure P/3) passed in Civil Suit No.42-A/2007 by Second Civil Judge, Class I, Raipur, whereby an application filed under Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC") for adjournment of the case and permitting the petitioner to examine her witness Smt. Tara Bai, in the month of May, 2008, was rejected. 2^ The learned Judge rejected the application on the ground that the case was fixed for examination of plaintiff's witness and there was no reason to adjourn the matter for next date of hearing. The learned Judge has not given any reasons for rejecting the application when the petitioner %. *. •% s s.saeQ g ^G. Raju has specifically stated that Smt. Tara Bai has some orthopedic problem and as per Doctor's advice, she was required to take rest for a period of four weeks from 3-4-2008. Thus, the petitioner/plaintiff prayed for permission to produce the witness for examination in the first week of May, 2008. The learned Judge has decided the case in a casual manner without dealing with the contentions of the plaintiff/petitioner. Even otherwise, the respondents without filing return, filed an application being I.A.No.3 on 16- 10-2008 for disposal of the writ petition by allowing time to the petitioner to lead evidence. Though the application is not supported by an affidavit, however, having regard to the facts situation of the case, the order dated 8-4-2008 (Annexure P/3) passed by the learned Judge without examining the contention and without assigning reasons while dismissing the application, deserves to be set aside. 3) Accordingly, the order dated 8-4-2008 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Second Civil Judge, Class I, Raipur, is set aside. The application filed the petitioner under Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC is allowed. The petitioner/plaintiff is accordingly directed to appear before the Court below in the last week of January, 2009 for examining her witness. Thus, the petition is allowed to the above extent. 4) It is directed that Second Civil Judge, Class I, Raipur, may proceed with the matter accordingly, in accordance with law. Satish K.Agnihotri Judge