02 IN THE HIGH CO^RT OI'1 JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (CHATTISGARH1 4eie fo. /2005 PETITIONERS/ DEFEWDAIITTS ^ ^y^ /^s'/ r^^ °7^?v" ^^f RESPONDENT M/s. Swastik Poha MU1, BaJod, thrdugti its proprietor Snit. pushpa Rathi, W/o. of Shri Rahulal Rathi. 2. Ranulal Rathi, aged about 40 yeaTS, '^x; - 6- Br: ^f^ • ; ; Sharikartal Rathi, aged about 45 years, S/o Shri Uttam Chand Raihi. ly Smt. Meena Devi, Wldow QfLate Mohah LalRatlli. Swaroop Rathi, S^o . Late Mohal Lal RatHi, aged abo'ut25 3?ears ^^lR/o. Railway Station Road, Balod, Distt.Durg. VERSUS 'State Bank oflndia Through fhe Branch Manager Balod Branch, Durg. Distt. Durg. WRIT PETITFON UNDER ARTiei-E,227LOF<@OWSiriTlgnOir OFINmA':": ! ••: . •;;:'^':.''. :i-:::-- : -~ XI-HC-78 IIICTI^'TT^ \dCT|-qi«lrt<.l,)i»'^<(1?IS,^c!>l'yy<< <^-1 (f •-? &U/OT 2£ ?^200 3ii^?tira^('pfgg%) an^?TmR'')i<t' ciaiTaiI^?Tri)tfi<b 1 26.9.2005 Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel Heard. ' The petitioner^ have of the Constitution ,of India ql correctness of the order doted District Judge, Bolod whereby rejected the appticatipn of the plaintiffs witnesses Wcross-exanii Brief facts leading to filii (»titioners herein topk a loan f petitioners failed to nepoy the loo^ civil suit before the Additional &y recovery of looh amount. In the sm\ statement, issues wene framed ar herein after adducing^his pvidenc^ petitioners have flled an applicatio| which issues were refr'amed dnd Thereafter, the petitioners moved the CPC for recdlling the plaintiff'^ to cross-examine them on Isaie N rejected by the trial Coirt vide jnifj tegal and Issue No.7 Was alreody •(I Ipr the petitioner. prefen^ed this writ petltion urrier Article 227 ..ftpiiifnfll tiiol'^ffs'^l 'fRl'^l'l ^'sll^iTan^T' ; '•" iestionirg the legality, proppiety and ooh ^9.4.1999 passedbyleia'nedAdditional ^arned Additional District Judge has pfjtitioners herein fjled fbi* reealling the 1e them. ^g of this writ petition.are tfiot the [om the respondent-Bank ond as the amount, the respondetrte-Bank fited a 1-rict Judg^, Balod in the year 1998 for- sujt the petitioners filed their written jd thereafter,\the plaiintiff/respwident closed the eyJdence. Thereafl-er, the imder Order t4 Rule 5 of the CPC on Issues Nos.4 & 7 were olso frumed. »napplication urider Order 18 rule 17 of witriesses, wiho were already exomined/ os.4 & 7, but that applieation has been ughed "order by say'ing thct Issue No.4 is lere in the eot'tiep issuejas Issue No.l, z^. ywi'-*qitii«qyyiTTlwi<i,RicM<4y'< Nftrtl^TT^ sii^sTmfeiiw ?rai3ii^CT^f!F v 9-^ 3II^8tlRffl5{<jt|ijd<Ei) ^200 ?^at<R^f|?rgn^'CT -2--+ thepefdre, there is no question cross-exflraindtion. , Perusal of Issue No.4 shoi whethei- the tr-ansfer of bonk ac< iagricultural brarich ;to commerci burden bf this issue is on the de illegal ond if the pefitioners want this and thereafter, the plainl rebuttal evidence. If respondent petitioherSwillbeienfitled+o;croi As far as Issue No.7 isj herein can tead evidence as to h< ^filihgthesuit. . ^ In view of th®abpve, I d< plaintiff's witnesses, who have a| further cross-examihation by the^ illegality w infirmity; in the order] In the result, the petition( interference by this Court undeit the petition is liable to be dismis^i Consequently,^ M.pA/.)P. h|< dismissed. . <)>i«[n<Dl<ii«iwT<l"l^t8^ ^3ll^T3II^?T ]pf recalling the plaintiff's witnesses for jis that it is a legal issue in the form that ()unt of loan taken by defendant No.l from branch is illegal. Even otherwise, the fendant to prove that the said traisfer is jt^it, jto lepd evidencethey can lead evidenceon iff/respondentwill be entitled to lead lleadhis rebuttal evidence in thortcase the s-examJnethe plaintiff'switnesses. concerned, this is also a legat issue, as whether the Brancb Montger h^is right to institute the suit and if the plaintjff does not want to lead evi|lence on this question then the petitioners SP/FS/2005-20,000 ••-7 rw'^^ y w the Brcmch Manager isnot entitted for not find any justificatjon in recolling the ready been examined, for the purpose of petitioners herein and as such; there is no impugned passed by the trjal Court. ' !P has not been oble to make out a case for Article 227 of the (^nstitution of India, id ond it is, accordingly, dismissed. 3.3745/05 <& I.A.No.83l8/OS alsp/-<itand Sd/- LC.Bhadoo Judge