.^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.} WRIT PETITION (227) N0. X^Z-, OF2010 PETJTIONER Plaintiff 'l "91K ^$1^:- ^•^^""" Anand Kumar Shrivastava,S/o late Narayan Prasad Shrivastava, aged about 25 years, R/o Pandri Tarai, District Raipur (C.G.) ^•^ ^^'"" ^- VERSUS RESPONDENT Defendant Smt. Jalvantin Bai, W/o Roopchand Kurre, aged about not known, R/oPandri Tarai, District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^NIIIII in^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (2271 N0. 2292 OF 2010 PETITIONER PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT DEFENDANT Anand Kumar Shrivastava Versus Smt. Jalvantin Bai WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IND1A (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, counsel for the respondent. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 7th day of January, 2011) Heard. 2. First Civil Judge, CIass-11, Raipur in Civil Suit No.15- A/2009 rejected the petitioner's application filed under Order 16 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC') vide its order dated 05-04-2010, on the ground that the plaintiff has not specified which of the sale-deeds filed by him, he wants to prove and also on the ground that alternative mode of proof of demarcation report is available with him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend : the plaintiff in order to prove all the sale-deeds and demarcation report filed by him applied for summoning the relevant witnesses which has been illegally dismissed by the Trial Court. He would further contend : it is for the plaintiff to prove his case and for that purpose, an application was filed for summoning the relevant witnesses along with the record. The learned Trial Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction while rejecting the petitioner's application on the reasons assigned in the order impugned. 4. On the other hand, drawing attention of this Court towards the provisions contained in Order 16 Rules 1 and 3 of CPC, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit: it is mandatory on the part of the plaintiff to submit the list of witnesses within 15 days from the date of settlement of issues in the case and, therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the plaintiff's application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 6. From the order impugned, it is not clear whether or not list of witnesses has been filed by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions contained in Order 16. Learned counset appearing for the parties are also not aware whether or not such list is filed before the Trial Court. Therefore, in the absence of specific admitted facts, it is not possible for this Court to decide the case after considering the provision contained in Order 16 of CPC. 7. So far as the reasons assigned for dismissing the application in the order impugned are concerned, the same are not sustainable in law. It is for the plaintiff to prove his case and for that purpose, he is free to summon any relevant witnesses in ^'.'y^ ^•^^. accordance with the provisions contained in CPC. At the most, the Court could have asked the plaintiff to clarify the vagueness, if any, in the application. 8. Therefore, the order impugned deserves to be and is hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for its decision afresh consideringthe provisionscontained intheOrder16ofCPC. 9. The petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ^ Kvr