HIGHCOURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH : BILAsPUR WRIT PETITION (CI NO. 217 OF 200T i PETITIONERs Smt. Rani Bai Dixit, agqd about 65 years, Wlo Late Shri Hari Dixit, Dixit Book Depot, K.K. Road, Raipur (CG). 2. Smt. Nalini Trivedi, aged about 44 years, Wlo Shri Rajendra Trivedi, Rlo Flat No.4, 54, Bisnu Apartment, Trimuni Nagar, Nagpur (MS). 3. Ku. 'Vijaya Dixit, aged about 43 years, Daughter of Late Shri 'Hari Prasad ’ Dixit, Dixit Book Depot, K.K. Road, Raipur(CG). Smt. Kshoma Bajpai, aged about 39 years, wife of Shri Alok Bajpai, resident of Yadav House, Napier Town, Jabalpur (MP). 5. Ku. Urna Dixit, aged about 29 years, daughter of Late Shri Hari Prasad Dixit, Dixit,Book Depot, K.K. Roadh Raipur(CG). ‘ Au represented by Attorney Umesh Kurnar Dixit, aged about 49 years, son of Late Shri Lal Prasad Dixit, Dixit Book Depot, K.K. Road, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). Versus Achheiai Jaiswal, aged about 58 years, Slo’ Shri Ramadhan Jaiswai, Opp. Mahavir Mohaia, KK, Road, Moudna Para, Raipur (CG). 2. Rampal Jaiswal, S/o Shri SUryaIai Jaiswai, Resident of B — 8, 9 Sector 1 Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsii and District Raipur (CG). (Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Rresent :- Shri Ratrindra Agrawai, couneei for the petitioners. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, counsel for the respondents. 1. i i i i RESPONDENTS 1 . i ORAI. ORDER I ‘\ s. _ (Passed on this 19'“ day of Novemr, 2008) ‘ i _ . ‘i @ g ‘ Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits ithat the impugned order dated 6- 2—2036 (Annexure—Pi1) passed by the 9’“ Additional District Judge Ralpur In cmi suit V ‘No 13-Al2006 is perverse and illegal on the ground that the Court 4" cannot restrict number of Witnesses to be produced by a party under R Order XVI Rule 1 read with Section 151' of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the CPC"). 12) Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the .1 respondents supported the impugned order. Leamed counsel submits that the petitioners have made an oral request on 22-4-2006 to §examine four witnesses only and thereafter, the petitioners in the Eapplication dated 2-9-2006 (Annexure—P/4) tiled under Order XVI l Rule 1 read yyith Section 151 of the CPC have. given a list of nine Witnesses for examination, which was rejected as the petitioners while making oral request has confined to only four witnesses. i3) l have heard leamed counsel forh‘the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The impugned order {dated 6-12-2006 in respect of application under Order XVI Rule 1 ; read with Section 151 of the CPC tiled on 2-9-2006 (Annexure—P/4) is not sustainable, as before the order was passed a written application was made where a list of nine witnesses was annexed therewith. The ‘ oral request made on earlier occasion cannot be given importance when the proper application under Order XVI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC was tiled. The impugned order in respect of ; application under Order XVI Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC g is unsustainable and the same deserves to be set aside. the impugned order dated i 6-12-2006 (Annexure-Plt) in respect of application under Order XVI Rule 1 read. with~ Section 151 of the CPC tiled on 2-9-2006 (Annexure-P/4) is set aside: .i5) l 4) For the foregoing reasons, ln the result, the-petition is allowed. Gowri w »