[r<( '•tt1 i^ ^.A»lt?-! .n'*">»»'s /' HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AT BILASPUR VERSUS 1. 2. Smt. Rama Mishra aged about 54 years, wife of Shri Brij Bhushan Mishra, Bramhin, Resident of Gondapara, Biiaspur, Tahsii and District Bilaspur, CG. Shri Jitendra Kumar son of Late Shri Lakshami Nath Mishra; Shri Aloka Mishra son of Lakshami Nath Mishra. .ate Shri Shri Pankaj Mishra son of Iste Shri Lakshami Nath Mishra. Shri Brij Bhushan Mishra son of late Shri Ramnath Mishrs. Aii the caste Bramhin, resident of Gondapara Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, C.G. Smt. Chandrabhanga wife Rajkumar Tripathi, Retired Tribal Welfare on of Shri 'eacher, Back 6. Smt. Satyabhama wife of Shri Ramashankar Bajpai, resident of House No. MIJ 109, Sector 3/B, Saket Nagar, Bhopal, M.P. . M.D. Sharma counsei for the petitioner. . Sumit Verma counsel for respondents 1 to 3 None for other respondents. WRIT PETiTiON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (28.04.2009) ,-tfff t^. 1 'SSa i—; With the consent ofthe counsel forttie parties, the matter is ;ard tinalfy. By the present petition the petitioner is assailing the order dated 4.2.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by Civil Judge class l Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 97-A/2005 by which the righj: of the plaintiff to lead evidence has been ciosed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that if the plaintiff is not permitted to iead evidence, she wiil suffer an irreparable loss because on merit she has a very good case in her favour. He submite that in frie order impugned it has been mentioned that the p!aintiff was given three opportunities to lead evldence lis fact is incorrect and only on two occasions the plaintiff took time for the said purpose. He submits that the affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Codeof Civi! Procedure has aiready been filed and she is ready to present herself on the next date of hearing for cross examination. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 Verma submits that the order impugned is strictly in accordance with law and it is the petitioner/pSaintiff who is avoiding the evidence. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. This Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of Justice if the tast opportunity is granted to the petitioner to present herself for cross examination subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000 to the respondents/defendants in the Court beiow. Ordered /^--€\ *^' -2 After receiving the copy of this order the Court below shat! give one short date to the plaintiff for her cross examination. . Verma, counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 submits that as the suit is pending since 2005, a direction may be issued to the court beiow to decide the suit at the eariiest. Prayer of Mr. Verma being reasonable is allowed and the court ^ -/• below is directed to decide the suit expeditiously not iater than six months from the next date of hearing. f Wifri the observations made above, the petition is disposed of. 0 Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge 0\h '''