IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 574 of 2010 (M/S) Sunder Singh ………..Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …….Respondents Shri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the State. Dated: 23 April, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard Shri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the State. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 21.12.2009 & 22.03.2010 passed by respondent no.2 in case no.01 of 2003 State of Uttarakhand Vs. Sunder Singh, pending before the respondent no.2-District Magistrate Pauri Garhwal. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.4 filed a case no.4 under section 12(2) of Road Side Land Control Act against the petitioner before the respondent no.2 and the same case was registered as case no.1 of 2003 State of Uttarakhand Vs. Sunder Singh. The petitioner filed objection before the respondent no.2. The case of the petitioner is that 2 respondent no.2 granted several opportunities to the respondent no.3 & 4, but they only examined Assistant Engineer National Highway Khand Roorkee as a P.W.1 on 19.04.2007. On 02.07.2009 the petitioner got himself examined and the case was adjourned for 30.07.2009 for examining the remaining witnesses of the petitioner. Thereafter, the case was adjourned several times and 21.12.2009 was fixed for examining the other witnesses of the petitioner. On 21.12.2009 petitioner moved an adjournment application which was rejected by the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 in his order dated 21.12.2009 fixed 18.01.2010 for hearing of the case but no permission was granted to the petitioner to produce remaining evidence. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application for recalling the order dated 21.12.2009 and for also seeking permission to produce his evidence. The said application was rejected by the respondent no.2 on 22.03.2010 on the ground that the petitioner failed to supply the list of witnesses. Aggrieved by the said order the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no.2 granted 38 opportunities to the respondent nos.3 & 4 and they produced only one witness i.e. Assistant Engineer National Highway Khand Roorkee as a P.W. 1 on 19.04.2007. He further submitted that since the adjournment of the petitioner was rejected on 21.12.2009 and 18.01.2010 was filed, the respondent no.2 should have granted permission to the petitioner for producing his remaining witness. He further submitted that the other witnesses are very crucial for the just decision of the case. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that petitioner did not submit the list of witness, therefore the respondent no.2 rightly rejected the application. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also examining the entire order sheet, the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that if the petitioner submits list of witness on 26.04.2010, the petitioner shall be permitted to examine the said witness on 26.04.2010 itself or on the next date fixed. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Let a certified copy of the order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties today itself on payment of usual charges. (V.K. Bist, J.) Arpan 23.04.2010