.c^ © hlOHCOURTOFCHHATTSSGHAT^ILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) WRST PETITSON (227) No. 2443/2098 PlgTITlONcR DEFENDANTS 1. 2. PLASNTSFFS VERSUS 1. 2. Smfc Manisha IVEishra, W/o. Late Prabhat yishra, Aged about 35 years, R/o. Shukravyari, Sn front of Gudiyari Sha'iwala Girls School Gydiyari, Raipyr (C.G.) Vishal Mishra, S/o. Late Prabhat Mishra, Aged about 2 Ya years (Msnor), through his mother Manisha IVIishra, R/o. Shukrawari, 3n front of Gudiyari Shaliwala Gtris Schoo! Gydtyan, Raipur (C.G.) Smt Kamia Devi, W/o. Late Shri Oiraja Shankar Mahadev Prasad IVIishra. Rajendra Kurriar, • Sjfo. Late Shri Glrajashankar ^Sahadev Prasad IVIishra, Occupation Servjce^ Posted as Assistant Grade-SSS PWD, Electricity Department Both are Rlo. Qwa. No. 14/407 Beside of Vikram Super Bazar Gali, Vidya Nagar, Biiaspur (C.G.) Mr. Rajiv Shrivastava counseE forthe petitioners. Mr. Abhay Tiwarl counsel for the respondents. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTJOXOF INDIA OAD.ER (2.4.2009) Wlth the consent of the parties the matter is heard finaily. 2. The chajienge in the present writ petition is to the orders dated 19.12.2007 and 7.2.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civii Sult No. 1-A/2002. Vide order dated 19.12.2007 applicatlon filed by the defendants under Order 17 Ruie 1 of the Code of CEvil Procedure was rejected. Thereafter,.defendants moved an appJlcation under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Sectlon 151 of the Code of Civi! Procedure whlch was aEso rejected on 7.2.2008. -z- 71 3. -Heard counseE for the partles and perused the materlaE avaiiable or? record. 4. Contentioh of the counsel for the petltioners Is tnat evidence of defendant No.1 couid not be led because of her iEEness. His further contentlon is that affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure has aiready been fiied on 22.2.2007 and oniy her cross examination remains to be done. He submits that on the next date of hearing defendant NoJ would present herself in the Court for her cross examination. 5. On the other hand counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the submisslon of counse! for the petitioners and submits that the Court beiow has rightly rejected the appiications filed by defendant No.1 under Order 17 Rule 1 and under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of CivII Procedure. According to him from the very begjnning intention of the defendant No.1 is to ilnger on the case and with this object only she Is not wiillng to get her cross examin©d. • 8. After hearing counsei for the parties this Court is of the considered view that one opportunity should be given to the petltioners/defendants for leading their evidence. Accordingiy, the petition is ailowed. Court below is dlrected to glve a fresh date to the partles for cross examination of defendant No.1. It wouid be the duty of the partles to furnish a copy of this order before the concerned Court wlthin 10 days froni today and the Court in turn wouid proceed further. Petition.ers are directed to pay the cost of Rs. 1000 to the respondents which would be deposited before the concerned District Court. . —-—- Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge v