SingSs 3s c-r^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. N0. /2005 PETITIONER 'sisiilall8i8aa ^?' ^^1 ^^^- Abhisek Singh Aged about 25 years t S/o. Purshottam. Singh " R/o. Vill. Akaltara, P.S. O \ \-f Akaltara, Tahsil and Distt. SSW^-A^^' / 1^^'; 69^" ^< ^ RESPONDENT Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS Bhuwan Lal, aged 35 years S/o. Shri Kukhram Sidar, Caste-Gond, R/o. Village Parsahi (Nala), Upper Division Clerk, Office Education Officer Akaltara, Tahsil and Distt. Janjgir-Charapa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 sn^rw f^iwsil^r ShtlRiflfer 3^ ^RRW, aTfl^'ls, Rldlfl^ 3ii^iMach *<I*<CTI ytwv, •••••••••••••'•"•••• g^ 200 Rre^f 3<i^ie«iiigTlff?(T 18.3.200S Shri Anil Kuiriar Pandey As per the affida'v-it filedl the notice on Shri Ashok appearmg before fhe cqurt reftised to accept ttte notice. none present onbehalf of tiite The pelitioner has preJ Icgality and. propricty of oi^lcr Addinonal Distriet Judge, Ja^ijgir leamed Additional District Jt< petition^r Iie3si33. for sLaiendsjiejo.t Brief facts leading to filtaj hcrcia filcd a civil suit agaiji| Rs.1,03,180/-. {uthatsuit^i of the respondent herein an^ the plahitiff/petitioner hereul fixed for defeadants evideac^. inovcd aii appUcatipa under (f tfae plaiat on fhe grQuiid that in. the meeting of that Samiti discussion it was decided to fhe outstaiidto thcrcof that Sainiti wrote a tlie slgnature of defendant al^c -3% aad to pay bythc fatfa.cr of thc pctitioildi *l<lFd41.f t||i<dT¥fe><J1iRtWK ^i3i1^ir3n^r , counsel for the petitioner. bv Prasto'n Singh that he weat to serve Sharma, couiisel for tlic i-espondent })elow but after readiug the notice he Accordiuglv, service .is coiaplete aiid |vsppndent. srred tbis writ petition questioning the dated 2.2.205 passcd by lcanicd ^tjgir ia Civfl Suit No.7-B/ 2003 whereby |dge rejected the application filed by the ^ut in the plaint. of ttlis petition are that the petitioner rt thc rcspoadcnt hcrcui for rccoveiy of ilritten statement 'aas beeu flled on belialf after frainiiig of the issues evidence of has been. closed and now the inatter is In the iiieantitae, the petitioner herein ^rdcr-6 Rulc 17 of CPC for amcndmcnt of iome Adlvasi Samlti was constituted aiid ple petitioi^er lierein was called aad after reduce the rate ofm.terest from 18% to arnount in instaSIraents and ni token to fhc pctitioncr hcrciii wliicfa bcars However, that tetter has been received lcjtter licrcm fhcrcforc. aamc waq aol^ within ^•) A ^E®? IIB' \'f'S llfll 1) IIIiiBii^BI SiBBM'fiR] g-ifiS8SSIM V. ^^^.^^^) XI-HC-22 3^^(rar?pT, »T[l«'ie,Rditiy 3i 1^1 '45|th *<I*(CTI g,^ich ••••-•-••-••••••••••• g^- 200 (^<>»A"""""""" 3n^T?iT fewsn^r sbfwgffeT awi* <^- sn^TgwilWB^tT -T- headin dar. ffae itaowledge of the petitioner] knowledge that is why he want|s the paragraph regarding letteif madc adiiussion about the loaiil The trial court after'. of the petitioner herein dg. pentioner/plaintiff has alreac(y applicatioa has. been filed. hcreia has plcadcd that 18% parties, whereas by tlie prop^s waats to. introduce that he is ejil inonth fhatgoes to 36% per v 'is fiof Bbrialiile and this appli^: trial. Trial court filrthcr hcld: beeu made party to the suit. Lsamed counsel for ffae only purpose 6f fhe petitioner f^i tliat the petitioner is aBowed qiicsnoii of docuincnt aad if tiie arB.eu.dment applicatiou an<^ In m.y opmion, ftie an|>- counsel for the petiti.Qner is ii( sub-rule ?3) of Order 13 of CPt thc purposc of cross-exainiiiji] document cau be. used and coti tUs tii'siTfl<fl-i *ii*iiiT^'teI€t'<Ri<-<;i< ^ari^irsn^r aad now th.at letter has come iato his to ainend the plaint by iiicorporatnig cf ui question whereby the respondent laad paynicnt. ;at|ing fhe parties rejecfed the application 1pie ground tb.at the evidence of the been closed aad fhereafter, tbis Fi^rther fhat ia tlie plauif llie petiti.oner p.a, iiitcrest was agi^cd bctwecn thc ip^spd amendment the petitioner heretu e^itifled for iuterest at the rate of3%per r^ar, therefore, the proposed amendiaent fcaiion has beeri filed onlv to delav the that said Mlistafa Khan has also aot jetitioner at tlie outset argued that the ir seekiag tbis aiuendiaent is to ensure cross-exaaune the defendaut on the is pcrmissible thcii hc wiU not picss tb.is writ petitiou. >wer to the' prayer made by learaed Section 145 of the E'/idence Act aad -; where it has been inentioned that for any witness of othcr party aay insel for the petition.er tiereta wants to tll use the document in question dated 1.4.2Q01. for cros ^&&mig \:1 181 lli WM '^•^^: 81 i'^ft' ^^. ii:.l: ! '- J IntlBaBir nin-J XI-HG-22 iiiciTaiiitt) 3^'<(isii<'i<i, ®Tf)«'i®, Rictiyy 3ii^l Math ^; 200 f^% sn^rw f^iwan^r i^dfer ?h^lcb^T fs 3lA-!lgWIWHli(T -5 defendant Bhuwaii. Lal about s^nature on the docunient. As inentioned above for for thc pctitioncr caa. usc fh^ petiUQner can move To tsyal With ffcie obser?audn afol Con.sequently, M.W. P; N| Gertified copy as per rul^ the execution of ttlis documenT and his fhe purpose of cross-examuuag, couiisel [s docLuncnt and for this pttipose the coitrt 'niTcl'n-f ^wti ffIWt ifolWK ^>3lf^T3n^T •esaid, tiie petition stands disposed of. i.407/2005 also stands disposed of. s. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ~>