E HON LE HI CQURT OF CHHTrISGAR BILASPUR (c G ) WRIT PETTTION 227 No ‘32 OF 2011 (" PETITIONERS 1. Gautiya, aged about 85 years. laintiffs S/o Late Shri Samaru, Caste Gond 2. “ Andhlyar Sungh aged about 75 years, ‘S/o Late Shrl Samaru, Caste Gond,’ Both are Resident of Viliage Bhadi, Tahsu Pendra, District - Biiaspur (C G VERsus 1.” Sukvariya Bai @ Bade Bai, ged abou 60 rs, Widow f d Reent of Viliage la Pargana Podi Uproda, ‘Tahi atgra, District Korba ( ) y Sonkuw @ udki Wife of r . ,iii Rampsad, liage Saila, - Defndants Parga Podi proda, Tahsil Katghora District Korba (G C..) Veersinh age about 80 ears, S/ Dok eSident of illag Bhadi, TahSil Pendra, istrict Bispur ( G ) ‘ Stat o Chhatgrh Through the Bilaspr (C.G.) Collector, 1N TH B GH AH AT P ) a t yea o Dadi Sid Sai si Kho C G nar B ra R/o Vi na U , g, RESPONDENTS e d y o ri R Ve D la C e f tisa u WRI PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITU OF INDIA, 1950 T \W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 321 0f201 l WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF 1% CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri CD'Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State. V 3h ORAL ORDER (Passed on 20.012011) l. Heard on admission. 2. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-ll, Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 55-A/2009, whereby the petitioner’s application to adduce further evidence has been rejected. ‘ Brief faets, of the case are that, on 30.08.2010, the plaintiE filed amdavit of his two witnesses under Order 18 Rule 4 ‘of CPC and also expressed that plaintiff do not want to examine any other witnesses. On 04.12.2010, both the witnesses were cross examined by the opposite party. 0n the same date i.e. on 04.122010 he moved an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC for examination of two other witnesses and on 10.12.2010 he further applied for examination of two more witnesses by summoning them through court. : Gautiya & another Versus RESPONDENTS I Sukvariya Bai & others \% The trial court, met considering the matter, dismissed the appiication on the ground that the plaintiif himself has expressed on 30.08.10 that he will not examine any fuxther witnesses, earlier six opportunities were given to him and further, the plaintiif has not submitted any list of witnesses under Order 16 of CPC . Having heard the counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the order impugned, in the considered opinion of this court, the trial court, after considering the plaintiffs statement ' and after considering the fact that no list has been med by the , petitioner, rightly dismissed the application. The petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity committed by the court below in passing the above order warranting interference of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, iii exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should rennin itself hum interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large‘on the £ face ofthe record, which is not in the present case. The petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sdm