© B' CIl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION N0. r3 ^ g3> OF 2005 ^ PETITIONER PLAINTIFF •^ ^- ^^.^•^*5&^£ ^5S:^^ «<^.'---"(^/v ^ Pa •^•••••^ Amolak Chand Kewalchand and Brothers,Wholesale cloth Marchant, 38, New Cloth Market Raipur,Pandri, Tahsil and District Raipur. A 0/> j'egistered partnership firm under the Indian •-Partnership Act through Shri Uttamchand s/o ^^ Amolakchand , aged about years , resident of38, Panchsheel Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil aad District Raipur (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANT S ^^ 1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Oriental House, Post Box no. 7037, A/25/27, Ashafali Road , New Delhi 110002. Tahsil and years WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR WRITS, ORDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE XI-HC-22 3T^^T^T f^TT^3Tr^T ^r^'^rf^T 3^ ^l^ld^, ^Tfl^JT?, fs|QlH^< 311^1 M5<eh >.rsc^s"< 79^ 200^ Hm^lT^^lcb f^^s W^T^TT^K^cr chl^?d41^ ^l^dlH'f5^ ^f^TCTT ^3Tf^T3T1^FI 27-7-2005 Heard Mrs. Renu Kochar, <}ounsel for the petitioner-on admJssion. The petitioner has prefer^ed this writ petjtion under Arl-icle 227 of the Constitution of India, q^e^stioning the legality, correctness and propriety of order dated 26-1|-"2004, whereby the Civil Judge, Class-I, Raipur, has rejected the applicaljion of the petitioner under Order 17 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. on the ground that|since 1992 up to 26-£1-2004i.e. for about 12 years the matter was fixed |for plaintiffs evidence, and various dates given during this period to the pljaintiff for evidence have been mentioned in this order. The trial Court recorde<i been granted to the petition^ opport-unity was given to the pe^itioner/in spite of that he is not able to produce the evidence, thereforej I have perused copies of| the petitioner, which are from ^ the trial Court cannot be said td rather the matter was pendin^ evidence and the plaintiff has that sufficient opportunity has already r for adducing evidence and even last his right to adduce evidence is closeA order sheets filed by learned counsel for -4-2002 onwards. The order recorded by be unjustified. In passing the said order, the trial Court has not committ-ed any material irregularity or illegality, since last 12 years for the plaintiffs lot been able to bring the evidence and adduce, evidence. On numb4r of occasions the petitioner sought adjournment and filed applicatjoi|i under Order 13 Rule 2 of the C.P.C., even that was allowed by the trial Cout't liberally» (^4T XI-HC-22 3^ET ^sqicrtq, ^Tfl^^Ko, {cKrlK-iy HW€<TT9W1ch 3Tl^?TM5|eh ^_c^."p,3>.2^^ v^ 2005 f^re^ 3TT^?T^T f^TT^W^T ^iW^rfN Soma -y }^ / 3n^T^<[TW:^rfN Therefore, I do not find Courl-'s order, The writ petition | dismissed, at the admission stag^ Consequently, AA.(W.)P.N| 6321/2005 stand disposed of. c|ny justification to interfere with the trial \\s liable to be dismissed, it is accordingly, itself. No order as to costs* ^0.2791/2005, LA.Nos.6304/2005 and chl^Id41^ WT^ff^ te^t <{^R ^3Tf^T3TT^1 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (^^fe^) l^ ^