Q^ vb+y-i^'°+/o +(--^a^c^ t IN THE HON'BLE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. 2-1 S^j /2002 (S.B.) PETITIONERS 1) Ansuiya Bai widow of Ravendra Singh, r/o. village- Rajkydi, Tah. Baimetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ^o- <?-• ~ - ? • f' ijTf.. -^^. •-"'<-'^^>^' .V '^ 2)(JS|mt. Prabha bai widow of Bhojendra ^7 ^••* singh, r/o. village - Rajkudi, Tah. Baimetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3) Smt Meena bai wife of Ghanshyam Singh, resident of village Bhaismuda, Tah. And Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ^ ^ / 4) Chiten singh son of Late Shri Ravendra singh, resident of village Rajkudi, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 5) Chetan Singh, son of Shri Jalim singh, R/o. Village-Bera, Tah. Bemetara (C.G.) 6) Mahendra Singh, son of Shri Talim Singh. 7) Prahlad singh, son of Shri Jalim singh. 8) Shailendra Singh, son of Shri Jalim Singh. 9) Arvind Verma, son of Shrki Jalim Singh, 10) Utra Bai wife of Santu, Sl.No. 6 to 10 are resident of village Pikri, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.). 11) Ratna Vermawife of Pawan Kumar Verma, resident of Tendu Bhata, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) •BUJJ3A qSms Bjpuafoqg jo MOpiM reqBqq^.1,3 jsq^oui iiBipjenS {Bjn^'eu qgnojq^ -JOUIIH sjeaA Q inoq'e psSa 'BUIJSA qguig 'ejpuafoqg jo uos 'jBMqsamn (6-[ \T) •T3UU3A q§u;S BJpusfoqg jo MOpTM 'req Bqq^jj Jsqioui ump-reng ^ej.v.'yeu qSnojq^-.iouTui 'sjsaA ETinpq^ pa§B 'BmjaA qSuis Bjpusfoqg uqg jo J3}q§ni3p 'vuisd^syi ijeuin^ (gT 1 \\ \\''<;-. •(qjB§sp:-BL[L[o)Sjna •I^SIQ 'BJB^suiag 'qBj, 'ipn^fey jo "(uapissj 'L[§U;S BJpusA^yjo MopiM 'req^msuv 'ja^OKi UBip-renS fej.nfevi i(8nojq^ - JOUTIU 'sjeaA /,i inoq'e p3§B 'qSms BJpuaA-e^i jo j3:q3nBp 'BUUSA Tuixeq (2,1 •(q-regsoi'Bqio) §jna 'nsia •'ejBisiusg •I.TBJ, 'ipns[fe^-3§B[iiA jo ^uapissj 'sjesX 9g inoqia pa§^ 'x.t§uis BJpu3AB^[ uqg jo uos 'qSuig ^jpusifeqo (91: (•0'3)Sjna •US'IQ 'BJBiamsg •T.TBJ, 'Tpn^fe^ ag^niA jo luapisaj 'sjBaA ^g inoq^ p3§B '•BUJJSA 'i3-ipu3doj,'(s'[ ^l: ('o'o) §-i"a'usia 'T3J813UI3g •qEJL 'Ipn5(fe^-3gT3niA JO lUSpTSSJ ^^Tf' 1lr 'qguig T3JpU3ABa uqs.jo ja-titSmsp 'lsin^t'bT •qSms B-ipustiA uqg jo SJTM vag BJ^TLO (£T: (•0-0) Sjna -l:sia '^jB^suiag HSLfej, 'qoqiBi^xfO luapissj 'i[8uig treqoin uqg jo SJIA 'IBUJJSA puBAurea (sT @ Sl.No. 18 and 19 are resident of village- Rajkudi, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg(CG) V_ERS_US RESPONDENTS ^_ 1) Smt. Keja bai wifS of Shri Milan, aged about 41 years, agriculturist, resident of Kirki, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg (CG). ^ 2) . Smt. Bimla Bai wife of Shri Ishwar singh, aged about 26 years, agriculturist, resident of Chourenga, Tah. Baloda Baz.ar, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 3) Kamal Singh, son of Shri Gouri Shankar K-urmi, aged about 25 years. £.- 4) Yashwant Singh, son of Shri Gouriswhankar, aged about 20 years, P- 5) Udal Singh, aged about 16 years, s/o. Shri Gourishankar. ^ 6) Muriidhar, aged about 14 years, Sl.No. 5 and 6 are minors, through natural .gyardian Younger brother Koraal singh,/ gpsident^ of Chourenga, Tah. 4,^L^/ Balondra (Baloda) Bazar, Distt. Raipur. (^ 7) Smt. Amin Bai wife of Shri Dharendra Singh Kurmi, aged about 25 years, resident of Bera, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). li' iii. ^_ 8) Smt. Nirmani Bai, wife of Teekam Singh Kurrai, aged about 25 years, r/o. Beinetara, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg. 7 9) Kanhaiya, son of Shri Bhulan Aged about 41 years, agriculturist, village- Tendubhata, Tah. Benietara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). ? 10) Malik Rara, son of Shri Bhulan singh, aged about 23 years, agriculturist, resident of village Tendubhata, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). 11) Yashwant singh, son of Shri Bhulan Singh, aged about 23 years, agrkiculturist, resident of village- Tendubhata, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). }ff 12) Smt. Sumitra Bai, wife of Vishram, aged about 38 years, resident of village Saiguna, Tah. Saja, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). ^r 13) Urmila Bai, wife of Shri Amrit singh, aged about 37 years, resident of village- Ninwa, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) TO 14) Sahodra Bai wife of Basant singh, aged about33 years, resident of village Baiji, Tah. Bemetara, distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). 15) Bhulan singh, son of Shri Gopal, aged T abo-ut 65 years, resident of village- Tendubhata, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). ,16) Sumitra Bai wife of Shri Onkar Singh, agedabout 27 years, resident of village Lolesara, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarhj. 17) Champabai w/o. Kripa Ram (Dead) L.R.'s •1 a) Rain singh, son of Shri Kriparam, aged about 47 years resident of village Bhinpuri, PO Bemetara, Distt. Durg (CG). b) Pratap Singh, son of Shri Kriparam, aged about 44 years, resident of village Bhinpuri, PO Beruetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). c) Bhag singh, aged about 41 years, son of Shri Kriparara, resident of village Bhinpuri, PO Bemetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). d) Ramesh Kumar, son of Shri Kriparam, aged about 39 years, resident of village Bhinpuri, PO Bemetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). e) Kamdeo, son of Shri Kriparam, aged about 33 years, resident of village Bhinpuri, PO Bemetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). ^ f) Kunjram, son of Shri Kriparam, aged about 30 years, resident of village Bhinpuri, PO Bemetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). g) Sumer singh, son of Shri Kriparam (Dead) L.R.'s. i) Smt. Thagiyabai, wife of Shri Sumer Singh aged about 4o years, resident of village Bhinpuri, PO BAnetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). ii) Natkeshwar son ofShri summer Singh, . aged about 20 years, resident of village Bhinpuri, PO Bemetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). iii) Kumari Godawari, daughter of Shri Sumer Singh, aged about 18 years. resident of village Bhinpuri, PO Bemetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). iv) Gulab son of Shri Sumer Singh, aged about 16 years, minor through : natural guardian mother Smt. Thagiya Bai. h) Smt. Bhuneshwari wife of Shri Basant aged about 28 years, resident of village Jiya, PO Jewra, Tab. Bemetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). p i) Smt. Gayatri, son of Shri Ganesh aged about 25 years, resident of villageKenwachhi, PO Chhal, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). l&' 18) Chandra Bai, wife of Shri Pheru Singh, aged about 40 years, cultivator, resident of village-Kirki, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg. ^ 19) Ramendra Singh (dead) through : L.R.'s a) Shailendra Kumar, aged about 29 years, s/o. shri Jalim Singh. b) Raghvendra, aged' about 32 years, s/o. Shri Jalini Singh. c) Arvindra, aged about 28 years, son of Shri . Jalim Singh. d) Smt. Uttarabai, aged about 22 years, D/o. Shri Jalira Singh, e) Smt Damyantinbai, aged about 35 years, wife of Shri Mohan singh. f) Snit. Ratna, aged about 26 years, w/o. Shri Pawan Kumar Verma. g) Smt. Chittara Bai, aged about 24 years, wife of Shri Vijendra singh. All are resident of village and post Bera, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg (CG) \->/ ;';\ i. >/' 20) State of Chhattisgarh, through : Collector Durg (Chhattisgarh). ,.,.,-'- 'i\ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION ^v'l ? l^ji /'&• ii OF INDIA. r. T S)BO •syituieid ei|i JOj uieiqojd eq} p pue| eq ueo }ins eiff ^eq} os sssseuiim e| -oo pinoqs seiyBd eiji pue 'PSAM)|| 'uouiuins^o souBnssi 6uipjB6ej LUOJ^ q»uoiu euo uiyiim, peuituexel p tsi| 84»ujo^ psuiiuexs eq 0} peu| o} psmoije 8JB uisjsy sjsuoiBsd uoisiAey |IA!O Suipiosp eiiijM }jno; qBjH 84»ejo^eq eiug 0} siui; 0104 suojiged lUM/suoistAsj p jequinu '| aABLj Siuepue^ep 8141 jo souspiAe ei OS|E 9Aeq suiuieid jo souepiAS 'ss) SB4 9Lues ai)l p tusiue}e}s usnu/v^ etejedes 'uoiijijed 'uojiejeioap jo^ siuepuodsej Aq pe|y se/h 'o^gl. -1.-OISI (ing IIAIQ leij) SJB uoiytsd }urt| •UOISSIUIUK joj sjauoRiisd eqt ;o ^eqsq uo| loiflsia |@uo!Kppv psujeei Stji Aqsjj sq» Aq psssed 2002-6-Zt P8»ep J^ peuoi^snb SAey /iAO|sq pnoo 341 sj "61 oi 6'°N siuepuodsej ^o ^eqsq 'OZ'ON luepuodsej/steig 9q»jo] •9 0} [.'OM stuapuods^ 'ueijsnqg iMseqs 'W lfl!A ^es I eift iou se/u\ siqi 'jsAeAOH -.{o p3so|dsip e|L|l Buiuiiuexe ui js^o qoes 4(i 8}e|iedo |||e sq OS|B Aeiu eiues 'IISBQ jo (UBIIJBAA 8ou|e)s!sse Aue ^UEM sjsuogBsd 94) ,ji ',<<]epot eq p|noqs sssssuiw esoq} 'sess^uiiM |euiej eje qoiqM sssssutiM Jiaq} euitfiexs Isqt ley} jepjo ue pessed ZOOZ/Q^'ON S!M» 'Z002-8-9 P®iep-isp-io Ag -^noo (liejei) sjeuoiiRed 941 Aq pe|y useq ^Aey '()ousd sii|i BuunQ 'pepjoosj useq |OS|B )t p isoiu 'jeyeejeqi pue 'pepjooej ijieeq ssfnssi 9i|( p 6uiuiejj jeye pue psjy 4'seq I's^unosoe ys uoftdtuepej pue uoisse^sod ^ossaospsjd jisiff pue uisjey 9 0} ^.'of^ 6uipued si iioiyM '(jeqiunu MSU) ^S/V sit)} ys Bui|y 01 6uipe9| S}OB( ieug | fo uo nyeg |e|npuei|o 9uo fo uoffewvfieya psiy uojieoiidde sq( pepsfej appnp >qM 'ejeisuisg 'aBpnf puisiQ leuoitppv ^pjo SL|I y> sssupajjoo pue Ai!|e6ej syi |o^sq Stuepus^ep eje OI|M sjeuoiiiteq sqj. sjeedde euou 'SOIAJSS ^o s}idsu| jsAMB"] |eued 'eqoe^o^ Bejed 'J|A| i^J Jo^ eieooApv 'iedfeg yssiuijA 'w •sjeuogBsd aqi wi s}eof?Apv |>Apv Joiusg 'ueAii •o->rd 'Jlftl SOlllS do sooz S-Si. l^ltphiyhM^ >l:>»to)>(j>iS) (( l^lhlh l-y>U>jfc.lifc J^[ftifelhiB BSJI»>R!lt»aii;^IK. Iftblh-itell.b] Jitel^lte ~200Z .t-B .1.--.-. - ttoihte lUhlh ttofch l^ll^ >Kftll->bj 'Slrftyiiii ' h.l->lh>lfc- |n.p ZZ-3H-IX XI-HC-22 w^r?ir f^Tfesn^r s»>tii<tigf?cr 3^ "qi'i|lc)t|, ®Tflu'16,RldlU^< 3)1^1 M^ttl N11rilsh*41*'"""" •••""'•'"r'Wj- 200''^ 311^1 ^kllSK(ri?(T •2- evidelnce impress|ed After order dated 5-8-2002 the 5) for examination of one witt) ground that his evidence is ne^ Bhqjendra Singh and Chandul^ bedridden, therefore, his was objected by respondents prayer has already been reject^ 2002 wherein it was requestec( summoned. Therefore.this as such, it be rejected. respondentsNo.1 tQ8impress|i No.31 observing that the same| ! have heard learned co< As agreed by learned ci| disposed of at the admission s^i Leamed Senior Couns^l 5-8-2002, the petitioners hereji witnesses, the only condition| should be closed within one petitioners herein were the only witness of the adop( examination was necessary possible for the petitioners to condition, an afRdavit in suppo|' affidavit, even the medical C.P.C. and explanation to witness is sick or infirm, producpng cantiot qii<<Fci<fl-f iiic]TfftetA<Ri«i< ^srf^Tsn^r jsetitioners herein filed I.A.No.31 (Annexure P- liess Chandulal Sahu on commission on the |essary in order to prove the adoption deed of Sahu is a- person above 70 years of age and be recorded on commission. The same |No.1 to 8 herein on the ground that such a id by that Court by previous order dated 29-1 - that Chandulal Sahu and other witnesses be aitplication has been filed just to delay the trial, Hcjwever, the objection raised by counsel for iss|ed the learned trial Judge and he rejected I.A. |has been filed just to delay the trial. insel for the parties. >unsel for the parties, the writ petition is being |age itself. for the petitioners submitted that vide order jn were allowed to examine all the remaining which was imposed was that the evidence |month. In pursuance of that direction, the their evidence. As Chandulal Sahu being :ion deed of Bhojendra Singh, therefore, his |and being a bedridden person, it was not him to the Court and about his ailing of the application was also fited, not only the was also filed. Order 26 Rule 1 of the Rule specifically mentions that where the attend the Court, and a certiffcate of the certificate the .u XI-HC-22 3II^T?iT f^fNisn^T sh*< UR(t SpBti?-.^ IjSpB' 3^'^rai?w, ®^fl«'i6,Riditiy 3ll^l l^ch *<1*IWI Shlith '"'"'""" """'"-"^"|?F]' 200'^-- 3II^?TgWIIWnf?tT registered medical practitioner the learned triat Court ought Chandulal Sahu oncommissio Counsel further submitted that by this Court by order dated 5-< i^ filed as evidence of sickness, based on that (o have allowed the petitioners to examine byallowing the application. Learned Senior t^iis was being done within the time prescribed il.2002. On the other hand, le^rned counsel for respondents No.1 to 8 submitted that a similar request rejected by the trial Court on just to delay the trial. He furth two days before the last date ol have filed this application eai on last day of one month perio for examination of Chandulal application, it reveals that Cha Court premises. It is also supported by an affidavit in wt) above 70 years of age and h< In this connection, the sub-rule (1) of Order 26 Rule be examined on commission. *iof<-i<n-f KWrtTfffei.'l <Rit<i< ^isrf^iTa.n^T for summoning Chandulal Sahu was already 'rior occasions and this apptication was filed 3f submits that this application was filed just expiry of one month, the petitioners ought to lier, so that the witness could have been examined earlier. Having heard learned c|3unsel for the parties, 1 have examined the record. It is not disputed that fc|y order dated 5-8-2002 the petitioners herein were allowed to adduce all evicflence within a period of one month. However, I, the petitioners herein moved an application |Sahu on commission. From perusal of the ^dulal Sahu is residing 4 kms. away from the ladmitted position that the application was ch it was mentioned that Chandulal Sahu is is suffering from ulcer and other diseases, bedridden, and a medical certiflcate to that effect was also filed with the application. rovisions of sub-rule (1) and explanation to of the C.P.C. is clear which envisages that where a witness is unable to aftend the Court and sick or infirm, then he can xplanation to this Rule further envisages that /in^^tM;u_ Dats V. XI-HC-22 3tI^T^iT R-ii<*i3n^T s»»li<»iufgd wa-1itA. ^; 'SSf -^WWi, ®Tfltf'16,fci^iyy 3)l^|t|;|th ,, *iTiT?n'gwraT"""l""-"'"T"'"f" v^ 200^-. 311^1 gwiwfl1??r -^ tdl if a medical certiflcate by a r of the sickness, then same t calling the medical practition Therefore, in the allowed the application, In even though it was the last witness can be examined c from that place. But, unf^ ground that the defendant^ unmindful ofthe resultthat < matter is still pending by more than two years. Ir] impugned order deserves Order26 Rule 1 ofthe C.P.< In the result, the writ| fix a date for examination of| of the parties not later thar^ shall appoint a counsel praj the applicants/defendants. counsel for the plaintiffe is brought back to Bemetara, account of lapse of the Court, then the trial Court accordance with law. The Registry of this along with the record by21' parties^re directed to app^ <tii<ifci<fl-i iitidT^'tec3'<R]<^i< ^arf^Ttsn^T •^gistered medical practitioner is filed as evidence ^e considered for allowing that application without j ler. cirel.imstances- the learned trial Court ought to have t/iew of the order dated 5-8-2002 of this Court, [date, but the Court could have directed that the <n that day because he is residing 4 kms, away trtunately, that application was rejected on the are intentionally delaying the proceedings, but [rder wW* is going to effect the proeeedings, the witho^t any progress, and it has been further delayed the circumstances, 1 am of the opinion that the be quashed being contrary to the provisions of Ipetition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to IChandulal Sahu on commission with the consent one month from today. The learned trial Court jsticing in that Court whose fees shall be paid by Counsel for the defendante shall ensure that ^ansported to the place of the witness and again ^nd if on that day the evidence is not recorded on p^titioners herein and defendants before the trial |shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order, in pourt is directed to transmit a copy of this order P-2005 by a special messenger. Counsel for the ^irjiefore the triat Court on 28-3-2005 for fixing a XI-HC-22 3^'-:q7qT?(q-, ®Tfl<l'l6,Rlrtiy^< 3TT^?T<-ora» HTH<fTSt)t<|ch ^..w..;...^....w^..^ 200S- sn^T^r R-fi<*3Ti^?r st)'<i«hflf?(T 3<1^1 ^WIW^I^T ^ date for recording the evidence shpuld not be beyond more than old the trial Court should try to dif In view of this order, and 7254/2003 stand disposed o] Certified copy today. bf Chandulal Sahu on commission and that |one month from today. The suit being very ipose of the same expeditiously. |M.(W.)P.No.1231/2002, I.A.Nos.6986/2002 °hi<if<i<fl-f >iit<]-]Tfffetfl'<Riwi< ^isrf^iran^r Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge