*W 63‘ \d\/ In the High Court ofJudicature at Bilaspur, (LG. Writ Petition No.Q.;z3’{ of 2004 Petitioners : 1.M/S System India Castings, a partnership tirm duly registered under the Partnership Act, having office at 9-C, Indusmal Area, Bhilai, District Durg. 2. Sushil Kumar Jhamb, aged 67 years, Motiial Nehru Nagar, District Durg. 3. Vikram .ihamb, aged 34 years, son oi Sushi! Kumar Jhainb, resident ofMotiIal Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg. V el'SuS Respondent? 1. M/b Corporate ispat Aiioys (P) Limited, works Dnanod, Arijora, registered office i78-A, industrial Area, bmiai, District ' Durg. 2. Jagdish Jaiswal, son of Shalik Ram Jaiswal, 178-A, Industriai Area, Bhiiai. ‘3‘ M/S Corporate lspat Alioys (P) Ltd, 1'78, MLDC Industrial Area, Hingna Road, Nagpur. 4. First Additional District Judge, Durg, Chi ‘K Petition under Article Q27 nfthe Constitution oflndia, 1950 / i \ » suspendgd 'on account of deg Tiruvathj, so he could not_appr bdow r€j¢ct€d theapplicatiau c 1'11 all Iiinq opportunities 11a c1€fenda11tlpetitj01mr to adduc aflduC€ hi3 evidence. Even t1 151 of CPC was not supported I have heard the learned < Learned comlsel for the date of evidence. ie. on 23.7.20 to the court m give his evident: way and by the fime he reache‘ the court work was already closed; therefare, there was su reaching the court when the further Submits that the case a of moreethan Rs.3 Lacs and adduce his evidence then Sen'm He further Submite that the pe any impoeed, for giving the evidence. Looking to the facts e application and alSo the fact th to adduce 111s ev1dence the lee ‘justice, . \ought i to have allovw evidence. Therefore, in View of ‘ x xth ofr one advocate namely Shri oach the court. The learned. Court f the petitioner on the ground that vet already been granted tothe e his evidehce ”out he fahed to 1e appiication filed under Sectiorr 3y the afhdavit. ~ :o'uneel for the parh'es, petitioner submitted that on the )4 when the peLtioner waS comhg .e h1s car became defechve on the 1 to the court at about 12.15' p.1n. iuspended and the evidence was mcient and genuine cause for not matter was called out. Counsel gaiust the petitioner is for recoverv .f the petitioner 15 not allowed to ts prejudlce W111 he caused to him muoner is ready to pay the cost, 1f last. opportunity to adduce, his 11d grounds taken in the said at the petitioner has not been able med trial court in the interest of d the petitioner to adduce his he above facts and Circums ’& a of the: case, I am. of the opinion mt if'the petition of the petitioner is a110wed and one last oppo gto him subjéct to payment o justicewill be served, of the petitioner is allowed, the e P-Q) is hemby set aside and» d the evidence of the defendant] petitioner herein subject to p ‘ment of cost of VRs.1,OOO/- and ihat the petitioner will produce the evideiice on 08'. 1 1.2004. It is made. clear that :10 further porttmity for adducing evidence will be granted ‘tothe‘ petitioner. With the aforesaid obs ione and directions, the petition stands dieposed of. > 425/04 also stands disposed of. ‘ 2 In the result, the petiu‘o order dated 30.07.2004 (Axu ‘ ’ ”the trial court is directed to re Roshan/ Padma 'ty ofadducing evid¢nce is given, Rs‘1,000f- cost, Ithe intércst of Consequently, M.W.P. No Certified copy as: per Rul . m c r r p e t . e /