’ 1 W EEQH €§URT GF CHHATTI§$ARH likTI BimSPUR it Petiticn Ar27. N0.241$ Gilf 2&11 Petitianers 1. Ramesh Kumar Agrévvai Sic (late) Plaintiff N04 Jainarayan Agrawai, Aged about 55 years, Occupation Sqciai Wcrker Rfo Nayaganj, Raigarh; 1;"ehsi! 3: Disirict Raigarh (CS) N Ku‘Ranjana Rajput Eip Madan smgh Ragputi Aged abew 28 years, Occupation Soc§ai § Workg Rio Saraipau, .Tehsii ' , & Thane Gharghada, Districi Raigarh (013.) Vénod Chhapar%ya S/o Shambhuram, aged about 44 years, Ri’e Sadar Eazar, Ra%gafh, Tehsii & Distric‘: Raigarh (C.G. Versus 1‘. Monnet ispat and Energy Limited, Thraugh — Chairman, JRLaab, viiiage Naharpaii, Tehs§§ Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) , wintiff was pa ft Resgondents Defendant No.1. Ccnservation Board, iocaiity af T.\i. Tower Road; Chhoteatarmuda, Raigarh ((3.533, Defendani N33 3. Stata of Chhattisgarh, Through - uL Officiating Deputy Secretai’y, Coiiector, Raigarh {c.G.) (Writ Petiiion under Ariicie 22? of the Conetituiion of indie) MLMahendra Dubey, counsei for the pe‘iiiioners. fvir$ourabh Sharrha, counsei for respondent No.1 None presen‘r for respondent No.2. MrSumit Jhenwar. Panei Lawyer for respondent No.3!State. _ ‘\1 v}? <\~\ i 1 c: {$8: ‘Hon’bie Mr. TR sharma, J.) GR§ER (132119—291 1} 1. 5y this writ petitiéor/J under Articie 2270f the Constitution of indie the petitioners have ohaiienged the iegaiity and propriety of‘the order dated e ‘ \t ' ‘\ f t2 ) ; Defendant N02 2. Chhattisgarh Envimnmeni ' Conservation Board, Raépur, Thraugh Regionai Offiser, Chhattisgarh Envimnmen! p). 1.1 2&1? passed by the 3m Additiorlai District Jujdge {FILL gain, in 3M? Suit No.3G+Ai2OG7, whereby the appiicatiot‘i. fiied by {he petitioners uhder Order 16 Ruie d§smissed i have heard ieamed caunse§ for the pariies, perused the Graer impugned, appiication and other documents ¥i£ed on‘ behalf of ihe pet§tionere . As per copy 0f the plaint, this is the suit in representative capacity filed in the year 2007‘ in which the peiitioners were under ebiigation is iiie ail documents along with ihelr pialnt at the time sf filing the piaint and aise to file iist et the witnesses undenei‘der 16 Ruie 1 of the Sade of Civil Procedure at the time of settling the date and nxing the case for evidence after framing all the issues, but reason best known to the petitieners they have not flied documents before the trial Court and have not hied list of the witnesses at apprepriate time. Even at the time ef hiing of such application for taking such iist, the petitioners have faiied to assign the reasons for not tiling the same at appropriate time. in these circumstances, hy dismissingthe application the trial Court has not committed any illegality warranting interferehce in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. l do not find any force or substance in the petition.‘ Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed subject to payment of cost of Rs.2DGGI— to respondent No.3 within t5 days from today before the trial Court. L ‘ of the Cade of (ER/ii Prccedure has beer: Ix: 9L F” \ mterim application sianoia disposed cf. /\ Sd/- l T.P. Sharma Judge a ‘ r