e^w^f mGH€OlJRT::C?P.GIIHA^TIS<5ARH:ATB^ ! ; • ' ' :." •1 - ! . •"1' ' •'•.• .'^ ' .1 i ' ..- S.B. : HQN'BLE JUSIlGl^SHRTMTISHjtAGNIHOT^ PETITIONER WRITPETmONNo. 533 of2004 ';,::. ,.• Maluram Singhania. Aged about,7Q years S/oShriPrabhulalSmghaniaR^o. KJiam^ya, j P.S. Khaman^ SaJa, Bistrict-Durg(phhatfisgar}i) RESPON0ENTS VE^iUS;l!" 1. Nagar 1 Pancha^ Through: JCMO, ^ i ^ Khamariya: Sliri N.!S. Biiatti .-?•?; Aged about 4^ years, , Nagar Pan4faayaft Kliamariy4 RTo Klhamariy^ Tahsll Saja,| Distriet .^:(C^: ^•/^^^^^^^^^^^ ! ;" • • •. •li :'. .-: 2. President, i Nagarj Panchayat Shri Anand Singhania, jNagar Panchayat, Khamariya, Tahsil (C.O.)11:.,!',,1.'.',.. 3. State ofj Clihattisgarli { Throyg- Collector, 1 Durg. (C.G.) :•;;'.•:•. Saja, Distt. Durg Districtf - Durs WRIT PETITIONaNDERARTICLE 226^227 DF tHEj CQNSTITUTION ;'QFINDIA.'1:' .:}'•;. ^::!.;-^ Present: Shn Manqj Paranjpe, Advoqate fer t|ie petitioner. ShnJ.K.Cjupta,A<lvoGate^^^ MissDeepaliPandey,|PaneliI^awyer|for1jfaeS|:ate^^ I. ORDER (Passedon20thdayiQfAprili20075 Thispetitioriisfiledcha}leHgiiQgitheleg^it\4andjvali^ity^pftheoi^ dated 6.1,2004 (Annexure P/Tj) whereimddtl tti6 applicatipn of fhe petitioner filed uhder Order (l^ M Procedure, was rejected. | 1 2. The falets,! m niitsfaell, are^^^t^ seeking fojr examinatipn pf Revenue liispeiGJtoT ] wtiQ liacl subiilittigd !2 : the spot mspection reportj. The permissi&n was granted by the Court below birt the petitioner could not produce tfae said witness on accouBt ofhis fransfer, witihm the prescribed time, 3. The present application was moved for permitting the petitioner to produce.the said Reveniie Inspector fbr exammation. The Court below, vide order dated 6.1.2004, rejected the application on the ^round that the petitioner could not produce the witness eariier despite opportunity granted to him. 4. Be that^ as it may.It appears that the grouiid raised by :the petitioBer is justified as the said witness\ was a government servaiit and was away, 011 transfer. In the interest ofjustice, it is necessary to grant one more opportimity to examine the said witness within the prescribed time. / 5. In view ofthe above, this petition is allQwed to the above extent. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge