fcV^'^.1^^..^ ^^^E!!SM-- itftd.-""' BBB^BB '<ia i..---"""' ^ fff^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITIQN (2271 N0. 5^?S> OF 2009 PETITIONERS Plaintiffs 1. 2. RESPONDENTS Defendants 1. Smt. Hemlata Kashyap w/o Gayaprasad Kashyap, aged about 40 years, R/o Magarpara Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil 85 District Bilaspur (C.G.) Srat. Prem Lata Verraa w/o Ajay Kuniar Vernia, aged about 38 years, R/o Near Nariyal Kothi, Madhuban Road, Dayalband, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS Smt. Nirinala Kashyap w/o late Yashpal Kashyap, aged about 35 years, •-'" 2. Sunni Kashyap s/o Late Yashpal Kashyap, aged about 16 years, Minor, Through - Natural guardian Mother Smt. Nirmala Kashyap. All R/o Magarpara, Samta Colony, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C,G.) 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioners beg to sj-ibmrlLas_under.l-^ -HC-22 SII^T^BT R-fi.* siilsr 9t)*it<^ .^ISfl 'S^ •^W\v\i\, 9v\wi<c, V^wwy. w fwii aiiitn snt^T ira^? 1»-FO-^^|&&^ ••wt 20° |c|<i<yT" sii^r TOiiWHteT i.B. Hon'bie Shri Justice N.K. Aaalwa :18-12-2008 Shri Amrito Das, courisel for th| Shri Sushil Dubey,'Govt. Advo( Meard on admEssion. The instant petitlon is directe^ 2009 passed by Fourth Civil Judge| No.lO-A/2009 whereby and whereun{ the petitipners under.,0rder,16 Rul^ dismissed. . .^ ;. : .- The facts briefly stated are as The petitioners/plaintiffs in a s4 have comptetedfthejr evidence, prefef 16 Ruie 1(2) of the C.P.C. seeklrji sxamine one witness without showll jesmed tria! Court after considering sfready bseh ^compi6teci^ in the ca^ snown"any cause to cai! She saii? evjdence of the parties, in its •appiication. \-eamed" counsei appearing f^ that the examination of said witness the case, and the learned triai Got|i S^PHC£ILCH. i h-ffiv^ h.s^rr! ^srnsri ?ni^i!r~2s;^i ? '^^^^fT c^&tilL^^?^< -^F^Jiwia a-^^s l .S^^v^;-s"^-^rt:,\' "s'hA ^r;r'JLAflsf'^i*'i". ?'*',.iwEi'i: Si.i.'.^'bnSy ; s.il'sf • c<pj.?^U[^i.Ly^ l' " ^e^tit'i?"ls^iar% ^H^r t:ny^n}^i^n i"(f ^vi^A^ ^'•w~L i^t ^ (uCiiL^i ^^i^lt/t'&^i^!! W'£ ^V&^i^?; ^i)<ltfi<(lTt 'Rm^f ^ fs<<^ ^l^,l< ^t'sri^Rsn^T e petitioners. ;ate forthe State. against the orderdated 31-08- Class-!!, Bilaspur in Civ!i suit jer the application preferred by .1 (2).ofthe C.P.C. has been jnder: sit filed by them after fhe parties rred an appSteatlon under Order ission of ths Court to ing any cause thersfor. The the fact that the 'evidenc®has .e'.antf'the plaintifis have. not 1 witness mpieti! 4!iscretion has dismissed the |ir the petitionsrs 'would submit |s necessary for jyst declslon of jrt ought to have a'iowed their ^ fh^ n^titi^^^rs; i»< ~i~^ ^f±Wr^i-^3'^f'S ;~t^<.-^, Ihss' b^^n ^'r^ferrsd . bv ths s*f i <»/Ji \i^t i '-vf^^ • h^' y . hi * £© i3y 'iHff pSIIIQS', ^HS H^ITi ^- r< Bilasput XI-HC-22 sii^r'^ Vw* s^s sti+il^i ^flicf !<••" 'S^i •^lllld^, anl'M'i®,(qciwy »3n^?r^'<ra^ k^u^y>^^ ti'nii s»>*it<*> 200 } fa'bttW' sii^iwmwdfet ^ the said witness did not find place in| by the petitioners/plaintiffe. Therefor^ discretion, dismissed the appiicatio^ ieamed ! trial ; Court'' has • committei warranting interference of thls Cos constitutton of india. it is well settled principie of!» its supervisory jurisdiction under Arti india, shpuld refrain from interfering Court.beiow except:in: sych ease irreguiarity 6r jurisdictionaS error is record, whlch is not in the present eas The'^petition has no merit_i dismissed on admission stage. *l'lllcl<il-f llli-if 4 hv\ <["I<SSK ^? 5?rf;tpr gn^r the list of v/ltnesses submitted , ifthe learned trial Courtin'its i, It cannot be said that the j any Jurisdictiona! iitegaiity irt under Artide 227 of the / thaf this Court, in exereise of ;ie 227 of the ituti -w|th the order passed by the s:,wkiGfe perversity, iiiegaiity, ivrit iarge on the face of the a • • ' • : '•- [nd_ the same is accordingly Sd/- N-K.AgarwaI Judge " ^