HEGH ¢GURT OF CHHATTE$GARH. BELI—‘xSPUR WRIT PETETRQN (Art. 22?1 Ni}. 533W20W W??? PETWON iJNfJER ARTECLE 22? OF '§”HE QGNSTWU‘E‘mN £3? EMBEA - gp§earanca 1W. 'Vivek Ranjan Tiwaré. Advocate for the petitioraea Mr. Raja Sharma, Advoca§e fer khe mspoma‘nt. @Rm. GREER {1330.2910; $Uf€iL KUMAR $ENHA,J. Heard finaiiy with the consent of ieamed caunsei for the games. The petitioner/defendant has filed this petition chaHenging the order dated 20.08.201i3 passed by the 6m Additianai Civil Judge, Ciass-l, Raipur, whereby an applicatien fiied by the petitioneridefeadant for camng the Witnesses was dismissed by ihe Trial Com and the matter was i‘ixed fei finei hearing on 25.09.2610. Mr. Tiwari submits that afier compietion of the evidence of respondentr‘piaintiff, the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and he filed an application for calling 11 witnesses in support of his case, but the said application was dismissed by the impugned order. ’Vli Sharma submits that the petitioner/defendant had un~ neeessariiy filed a long list of witnesses with a View 0f delay the proceeding in the matter. His submission is that the plaintiff is the owner and landiord of the premises and the petitionen’detenciant, who is in possession of the premises, anyhow wants ta deiay the proeess of the suit, se that he may remain in possession for ion’g period. ti . PETiTEQNERi Késhore Chandra Bhoi, Sfo La'ée Shri SS. 3EFE¥§§A¥§T Bhoé, age§ abauE 7.2 years“ Rfo. Q. Ne. 52H, Ma€hpara, Raipur, Bisirm'r, Raipur (CG). VER$U$ RESPGNQENW Smt. Leeka Sahu, W10 D. 3am, Rio Q. PLAENTEF No. 52/1, Mathpara, Ra§pun District Ra§pur (6.6x) 2 WRIT PETITIGN {Art 22?) NQ 536?:‘2MG A perusal of the impugned order wcuid show thai the iearned Triai Court has dismissed ihe application on the ground that on many eariier occasicns‘ the adjdurnments were granted but when the witnessee could not be produced, the said appiioation was fired by the petitioner/defendant which was not bonatide. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent/plaintiff, in which the respondent has objected to the relief sailed in the writ petition After fiiing of the reply, a rejoinder has been fited by the petitioner on 05.10.2016. tn para 4 of the rejoinder, it has been stated on oath that the petitioner/defendant now wishes to teed evidence ot oniy 3 witnesses. ?hei§’ names are as foliows:- 1. $hri Vyas Deb Bhoi, Advocate. 2. Shri \iK. Bose. 3. Shri Krishna Chandra Ptadhan. Mr. Tiwari submits that a last opportunity may be granted to the petitoner/defendant and a date may be fixed for the defendant’s witnesses. On the said date the above 3 witnesses will be brought to the Court by the petitioner/defendant on his own risR and cost. Having heard learned counset for the parties at length and having perused the records of the writ petition, i am of the opinion, that with a View to give complete justice to the parties, an opportunity shouid be granted to the petitionerldefendant to examined the above 3 witnesses for which the prayer has been made by tiiing the rejoinder. For the foregoing reasons. the writ petition is aiiowed. The impugned order is set aside. it is directed that the Triai Court shalt how tix the matter for defendant’s evidence on 15th November, 2Q10. On the said, date, the petitioner/defendant shat! produce/bring the above 3 witnesses. it is directed that if the evidence is not compieted on the said date, it shail continue on subsequent working days till finalitv. This order is subieot to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/-, which shail be paid to the counsel for the piaintitf or shall be deposited by the petitioner/defendant before the Court prior to commencement or evidence of above witnesses. With the above observation/direction, the petition stands finally disposed of. z Sd/— summMARsmHA Judge l