'&! F—S;PK'1';W o ,y. Zoi—- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTnSGARH ( ^ AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION 227 No. ['^(SS OF 2011 PETITIONER:- DEFENDANT<8 / Tanukram, aged about 40 years S/o Bhukauram Dewangan, r/o Mauja Umreli, Tehsil & District Korba (C.G) VERSUS RESPONDENT No.l :- /l. Pravinchand aged about 36 years, S/o PLANTIFF Bhukauram Dewangan RESPONDENT N0. ^ 2. Lalji, aged about 32 years, S/o 2 TO s^DEFENDANTS Bhukauram Dewangan, /^3. Bharat, aged about 30 years, S/o Bhukauram Dewangan, 4. Bhukauram aged about 86 years, S/o Hariram, (now Diedj^ All r/o Umreli, Tehsil & District Korba (C.G) ^-5. State of M.P (now Chhattisgarh) through District Collector Korba. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA r'\y. HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR WMTPETITIQN 327 No. 1763 OF 2011 PBTITIONBR:- DBFENDANT RESPONDENT No. l:- PLAMTIFF RESPONDENT N0. 2 TO S DEPBNDANTS VERSU6 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Taniikraui, aged about 40 years S/o Bhukauram. Dewangan r/o Mauja Unu-eU, Tehsil & District Korba (C.G.j, Pravinchaad aged about 36 years, S/o Bhukauram Dewangan Lalji, aged about 32 years, S/o Bhukauraiu Dewaagan, Bharat, aged about 30 years, S/o Bhiikauram Dewaugaa, Bhukauram a^eS. about 86 years, S/o Hariram, (now Dicd) AU r/o UiareU, Tehsil & District Korba (C.G.). State of M.P. (aow Chhattisgarh) ttinougli District CoUector Korba. WRIT^BTITIQN VNDMl ARTICLB 227 OF THK COMSTITUTIOW pF INDIA. (SB :Hon'Me Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.l Present:- Shri Ramakant Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Govind Dewangan, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri Basant Kaiwarty, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 8s 3. None for the respondent No. 4. Shri Akhil Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 5. ORDBR (Passedoa 29/11/2011) By this petition uitder Article 227 of thc Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the legaUty and proprieiy of the orders dated 3/2/10 & 22/2/11 passed by Civil Judge Class-2, Korba (C.G.) ia civil suit No. 33A/09 whereby right to adduce evidence of defendant has been closed vide order dated 3/2/10 aud again appUcation for permission to examine witaesses has been disnussed by Court vide order dated 22/2/11. SIiri Ramakant Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Goviad Dewaagaa, Advocate for fhe respondent No. 1, Shri Basaat Kaiwarty, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 & 3 & Shri Akhil A^awal, P.L. for fhe State/respondent No. 5 are heard. f ^• :jAs")'zai0 4. ^-- Order impugned perused. Vide order dated 3/2/10 right to adduce evidence of petitioner has been closed, ia tfaese cu'cuxnstances petitioner was under obl^ation to chaUenge such order within reasonable time but reasons best known to fhe petitioner, petitioner is not challenged the order dated 3/2/10 till 22/2/11. Considering fhe order uupugned and order dated 3/2/10, I do not find any groiiad for interference at fhis stage. Consequently, petition is disinissed suuunarity. No order as to costs. Interua appUcation is also dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge 1-— m <^ ti.. '•'-Ba»'i;iia»3fe