-^. TTii ° s\AK 8 E &»uf~'ttu8t- larf i'NtjLE :T'Tir 3 'l i ^' Piaintii?s V. i \.'f=^\^ i ifendant' ,i'! i.-y L(-i. z. Suresh Kumar Dubey S/o. Late R.B. Dubey, Aged abouf 53 yrs. R/o. Anand Nagar, Tah. & Distt. Raipur(C.G.) Mahesh Kuma; S/o. Late R.E yrs. R/o. Andnd Raipur. (C.G.) )ubey, Aged about 51 i Naaar, Tah & Distt. Ku. Nidhi Sharma, D/o. Shiv Narayan Sharma, Aged about 31 yrs. R;'o. infront of Rest House, irrigation Department, Clvii Lines, Raipur Tah. & Distt.Raipur(C.G.) Janak Sineh Thakur S/o. Thakur Singh Thakur, Agsd about 41 yrs, R/o. Village Sarona, P.0. Pt. Ravtehankar University, RalpurTah. & Distt. Ralpur Ramjee Singh T'nakur S/o. Late Thakur Ssngh Thakur Aged about 54 4. Banshi Singh Thakur S/o. Late Thakur Singh Thakur Aged about 41 yrs. 5. Smt Guiaba Bai, Aaed about 76 Resoondents 3, 4 & 5 R/o. Villaae Sarona, P.0. Pt. Ravishankar Untversity, Raipur Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) through their Genera'i Power of attorney noider, Janak Singh S/o. Late Thakur Singh Thakur, R/o. viliage Sarona, P.0. Fi. Ravishankar Universiw, Raiur Tah. & Distt. Raipur o 10 State of Chhattisgarh, through Coiiector, Raipur (C.G.) Ratan Chand Jain S/o. Manc;i Lai Jain, Aged about 46 yrs. R/o. Taigore Nagar, Raipur(C.G.) Prakash Chand Golcha, S/o. Late Miiap Chand Goicha, Aged 46 years, R/o. Ba'ran Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Sandeep Vsrma, S/o. D.P. Verma Aged about 38 years, Ri'o. Navjeevan Society, Raipur (C.G.) Rajesh Parakh, S/o. Sampat Laljee Parakh, Aged about 32 years, R/o. Shailendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Present: Shri Manoi Paraniaoe, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Yashwant, Searned Govt. Advocate for the State of Chhattlsaarh. Shri Ajit Slngh, iearnsd counsei for respondents 7 to 10. OPAL ORDER (Passed on 4'-" September, 2008} The pet'it'oners who are p'aintiffs feeiina aggrieved 'oy the order of the Court belo'ft' dsteci 29-3-2006 whereby and vvhereunder the opportunity of the petit'one's to produce evidence hss &een denied. (2) The case of the piatntiffs, in brief,.is th.at on 29-3-2006 the case was fixed for pls.lntiffs' evidence, When the case wss css'ed on that dav in the first round, the piaintiffs and thsir counsel were not present bsfore the Court inasmuch as at that time they were sxecuting an appiication and affidavit to be fiied before the Notary. Vtfhen they came to know about the termination of the opportunity, the same day at about 4.35 PM, the plaintiffs through their counse! made an appi'ication and submitSed the same in the opsn Court for '"ecaH'ng the order a'.ready made. That appiication v.'as summarily rejected by the Court be'ow on the ground that the Advocate appearing for the other slde had s'reaciy ,'eft the Court and also on the ground that the caus®show" for absence when the case wss called in the first round is not satisfactop/. Hence, this w"t petition under Article 227 of She Constitution of india. O') Havinc heard iearned counse! for ihe Dart'es. i am of the considered opinion that the tearned tria' Judge is not justifled in rejecting the application for the reasons stated by him. !n the first instance, mei-sly because at 4.35 PM whsn the app'icat'on was mo'/ed, learned counsel appearing for the other side was not present'and had Isft the Court prsmises, that could not be a va'id ground to reject the app'ication. There was no difficu'ty for the iearned tria! judge to direct the plajntiffs' counsei to sei've the copies on the iesmed counse! appearing for the ot'ner side and hear that applicatjon on merit at 3 iater stage. Secondty, the cause shown by the plaintiffs in their aD.o'ication not to remain before t.he Court when the case v/as caiied In the first round, is not seriousiy disputsd. The case of the pla'ntifis is that at the re!evant po'nt of time they were held up before the Pubilc Notary for executina an s.DDlication and affidavit to &e filed in the Court. !t is not as 'f the p'aintiffs moved the appi'cation after a lapss of considerable t'me-gap after 29-3-2006. The same day they moved an appiicatiQn for recailing the order already made the same day. ! find that there is faiiurs ofjustice. The writ petition is altewed, ths impugnsd order is set aside and the appiication of the pla'ntiffs to r®ca!!the order is allowed. Learned tria! Judae is dirscted to give opportunity to petltioners-pta'ntiffs to adduce evidence and proceed further 'n accordance with !aw. No costs. Sd/- CIuef Justlce