EB HmH coum OF ¢HHATT15GARH AT ELASPUR Writ Petitionlg) No. 2167 of 2967 Petitioners : 1. Jhamni Bai W/e. Kanshi Ram Satnami, aged about 45 years. 2. Narendra S/o. Kanshi Ram Satnami, ageci about 36 years, Parma La! S/o‘ Kanshi Ram Satnami, aged about 26 years, Bharat 8/0. Kanshi Ram Satnami, aged aboui’ 24 years, Umesh S/o Kanshi Ram Satnami, aged dlJUIJL Ll yvdl§, (AH R/c. Viiiage ~ Ramhepur, PH. No. 16, R.N.M.-Kawardha, District- Kabii‘dham (C.G.) 0199). Versus Reepondents i 1. Krishna S/o. Bodhiya Satnam§, aged about 38 years Occupatnon-Agncuiture 2. Shiv S/o Bodmya Satnam! aged about 3O years 3. Kanshl Ram S/O Bhagwati Satnami, aged abo a 48 year Qceupatécn- Labourer (No. 1 to 3 aH R/o. viliage - Ramhepur, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) 5tate' of Chhattisgarh, Through : Coliector, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) S_B: Hon’ble Justice Shri Satish K. Aqnihotri Present: Mr Sud‘nir Verma counsel for the petitiener a” WIS Dée§au D ranucy, D ranci I I Ia‘w'ye§' fw Ln: 1e3§03Wuviu :4 Iv§ I muta£ 11¢; § O R a E R (Passed on this 19m day of Aprii, 2097) By this petition, fileci under Article 227 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner impugns the order dated 8.3.2007 (P11), whereunder he was declined an 'opportunity of producing more witnesses on her behalf as plaintiff. The petitioner was granted eight opportunities on various dates, as stated in the impugned order itself. Thereafter, the petitioner wanted one more opportunity to produce some more witnesses which was denied x“ @ in view of the provisions of the Order XVH Rme 1 of the Code cf CM! Procedure, 1908. The order is perfectly vaiid, just and preper and dees not suffer from any infirmity. Thus, no interference is warranted under supewisoryjuriediction of this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed summarily. ~ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge r ‘ l