SINGLE BENCff IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 WRIT PETITION N0. ^ 3> ^G /2005 PETITIONERS ?\-v':'-r;-^ ^ ^t, <^y-s1^-' ^o.^ ^" 'y ^^ ^s^ ^c:T^ •^•? •<•> /^^^••, ^^ , RESPONDENTS ^rc.^u<^-':-s ^ 4. 5. / ^ Smt. Rupawati, wd/o Chandrshekar, aged about 80 years R/0 Village Tetali5L Tah. & Distt. - Raigarh (C.G.) Premshanker, S/o Chandrshekar, aged about 60 years,R/0 Village- Tetali,Tah.& Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) Chitravati, S/o Chandrashekar, W/o Devanand Gupta, aged about 50 years, R/o - Village Sahaspur, Distt.- Sundergarh (Orissa). Satyabhama, W/o - Banmali, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Kathani, Tehsil and District - Raigarh, (C.G.) Lalita, W/o Babulal, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Ghargoda, Tehsil and District - Raigarh, (C.G.) VERSUS Nandlal, S/o Bishi Kolta, aged about - 60 years, R/o Village Ketla, Tehsil and District - Raigarh, (C.G.) Daya, S/o Nandlal Kolta, aged about - 35 years, R/o Village Ketla, Tehsil and District - Raigarh, (C.G.) Smt. Shanti, Wd/o Arjun, aged about 65 years, R/o Village Murlipali, P.S. Kodekela, Tehsil - Lakhanpur, District - Jharsugra, (Orissa) Smt. Tikedai, W/o Dharmdev, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Badeemal, Tehsil & District - Raigarh, (C.G.) State of M.P. (Now C.G.) Through: Collector, Raigarh,(C.^.). -^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTCLE 227 OF THE COKSTITUTION OFINDIA XI-HC-22 3:n^T^FT R4i<=h ^TT^T ?OTT^)^f?<T 3^''*IN|<n<<, t?Tf|<1'ie, (sjdiyy 311^1 M5<C»» ,^— .y^^^^...^^4^...Y..^ ^QQ HTHCTTfflHlch f^s< 3TI^T B^TTW ^rfecT 14.9-2008 ctil^I<rt41ri <4H^iT^fe^<(^^.i< ^^1^T3TI^T Mr. Vineet Kuma^ ParKley, cx)iiasci for the petitioiiers^ Mr. R.R.Smha, P^nel Lawyer for the rcspoildent No.S/State. By fhis writ ^ Leamed counsel suit was filed m. the year stltion under Article 227 of fhe Constitution of India, fhe pe^itioners have questioned the legaMty, propriely aad correctaess ofpie order dated 25-7-2005 (Aiuiexure P-2), whercby the plaintiflfs e^idence has been closed. for ihe petitfam€rs siiibimts tbat fto 1997 ft>r declaratioa aad specific ^ perforDaiaiice of the contract |by fhe predecessor of (he petitioiiers namely Chandrashekhar, H^ of fhe suit, fherefore, his lega| fhe xxieaxitmie the evidence The defendaiits No.l acid 41 wever, he died dxurmg fhe pendency heirs were brought aa iiecoid aad iii rf ftie four witoesses was recorded, also died, fherefore^ jrfoceediag far bringiag fheir legal heirs on ^ecoid was also taken up aad m. that process, fhe tmie was cons| waated to adduce the eviden^ purpose fhe xaatter waa fixed ] ^imed axid fhCT^eafter fbe petitioners be of fheir witoess Bataii aad for fhat |for 25-7-2005. However, on that day, fhe counsel for fhe petitioi^ers could not prepare aiid file tibie affidavlt, fherefore, fhe coun^el sought for aa adjoujmment whioli was rcfiised. The counsel Jor fhe ^titioners submite tfaat the , order inipugned is primafctd^ arbitraiy aad pervexse, At least, fhe trial Court ought to have gjraated one anore opportuiuly to fhe XI-HC-22 3TI^rT^T R^ich 3TI^T ^>^T^^^ 3^"'<ii<<i<vt<i, yTfl+cie, (c|<ri[l'y^< 3ll^lM5|C*» , . r-— ; . Uulf'.' ^^W<!7-? *ll^^l ^^ich ""'"";'"";•""^[ 200 ^TI^T^^aiW^rf^cf ^J^ tbe ord4r evidenlce petitioners foradduciag the| affidavit. The couasel for affidavit, therefore, fhere petitioners. In view offlie jperusal of the impugned order impugned is pewerse. in spite ofgiviag sufllcient not able to adduce fhe to have granted oiie inore fhe evidence of fheir witaess | fhe trial Court was entitiled fhe circumstaaces, I ani of issue notice to fhe rcspond^i because the issuaace ofnoti^e proceediags of fhe suit whic|i notice is not being issued to to 4 wiU be entifl^l to movb order if tiiey feel ^grieved by| For fhe reason^ aUowed aad the trial Gourt flie petitfoners to adduce affidavit That opportunity to payment of cost of Rs,] evideiace of fheir witaess Batau oa petitioners could xiot prcparc the ^as no fault on the parf of fhe alk>ve op|)ortunity fbe spond^nts fhle ct)i^t<n41<ri ^i^<nT^te^<F3t<^i< ^^Tf^T3TI^T facts acd circumi8tances aad OM dated 25-7-2005, it reveals that fhe It has iiowiiere been aiieiitioned ffaat Qplportuiiily to the petitfoners, fhey were Len|ce» At the most, the trial Court ou^ht to fhe petiitioners to addxice |Batau oii afi&davit. For tihat purpc^e, ^o impose cost on fhe petitioaers. In opioion that, It is not ai^sessary to No,l to 4 fbr this ^mall matter ^e to fhem is going to fiirther dtlay the is pendiag since 1997, as sueh the jthexn, However, fhe respoiidente No. 1 applicatk)xi for modi&cation of fhis th order, snentioiKd above^ tl&e petition is dirccted to give cfie opportuxiily to evidence of their witsiiess Batau oa sjiall be given to the petitioners subject LOO/-(Rupees One Hmidrcd) by the XI-HC-22 73S ^ll4ld^<, ^TftwKp, Rl<rU^< t{ltildl(h*4i<h "<*«t<*"<<^>""tt^y 200 3TI^T^T Ri^i<t»3T1^T sb^i<t)^f?cf G.Singh 1^?T ^W^I^'WlWi'tl^ petitioner^ to the responde^its opportuxuly ffae petitioners a^ fhen fhe trial Court wiU U< accordance wifh law, Certified copy as p|er rules< No.l to 4 and if after that not able to adduce fhe evideace e entifled to proceed furtber ia 9hNld41T1 ^i^<nT&te^<Rt«i< ^3rf^T3T^T Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge y^ 'Yx (tf^^^)