HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (2271 N0. 3786/2011 Petitioaer Plaintiff Respondents Versas 1. 2, 3. Kasiraia Banjara (Nayak), Aged about 52 years, S/o Piinimm Banjara, R/o Deradih, P.S. 85 TahsU Kasdol, Distt. Raipur (C,G.). Madhyamik Shiksha Maadal, Raipur, Through Secretaiy, Madhyaouk Shiksha Maadal, Raipur, Distt Raipur (C.G.). Madhyamik Shiksha Maadal, Raipur, Through Secretary, Madhyamjk Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal, Distfc Bhopal (M.P.). State of Chliattisgarh, Thiough Collector, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sbarma, J.) Present:- Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, P.L. for the State. ORDER (Passedoa 26/09f2011] By fhis petition under Ardcle 227 of fhe Constitution of India petitioner has chaUenged fhe legaUty aad propriety of the order dated 22/6/2011 passed by CivU Judge, Class-I, Kasdol, Distt. Raipur C.G. ui civU suit No. 14A/11 whereby application for adjoununent filed under Order 17 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has been disiaissed on fhe ground that earUer petitioner/plauitiff has succeeded in adjoununent of the case for sbt times and has not adduced evidence in support of the plaint. 1 Mr. Hanumaa Prasad Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms, Sangeeta Mishra, P.L. for fhe State are heard, Learaed counsel for the petitioner subiuits fbat plamtiff has not examiaed any witness in his support aad opportunity has not provided fhen fhere would be no case ofplauitiff. 6. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further submits fhat at the request of pctitioner/plainttff Court below bas fixed fhe case for final ai^ument for 29/9/2011. Order iinpugned clearly reveal fhat present petitioner/plaiatiff is not entitled for aay synipathy iu a judicial proceeding. Considering his attitude, at fhe iastance of plaintiff case was adjourued fer evidence siace 7/11/2008 and was pending tifl 22/6/2011 for defense, In absence of evidence of plamtilf/petitioner there would be no claun/case of the plaintiff and right of plaiutiff would be finaUy derded. Considermg the aforesaid circumstaaces and attitude of fhe petitioner one opportunity of adducing evidence to plaintiff would be just aud proper subject to payment of cost. Consideriag ftie proceediag offhe trial Gourt view taken by the trial Coiut, issuaace of notice to opposite party wouJd onty cause delay in trial and observance of proceduial law woiild only be futfle exercise, ConsequenUy, petition is aUowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 4,000/- to fhe respondents wifhia 15 days froin today before the trial Court, If cost is paid within stipulated time then Court shaU provide opportuiuly of adducing evidence to plaintiff/petttioner aad fixed the case for evidence after providing reasonable time and also provjded opportuuity to defendant/defense, decide the case afi-esh.No order as to costs. Interiin applications staad disposed of. T.P. Sharma Judge ::>•-.- m