Y Q^! IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH V.' r ^r^iir^ WRITPETrrONmT) ^3^13W9-^wl'E Bcnw \p ^~v'—____-___ ^ v^ PETITIONER: 1. Kamaladhar, Q^^^-') ^s^ • ,^":c^'\^" ^"^i^v" ^" ..-•"' S/o Srashtidhar Diwan, aged about 49 years, R/o Jwaharpara, Janjgir, District Janjgir- / Champa(C.G.) Suklichain, S/o Daduram Dewangan, aged about 57 years, R/o Shastri Chowk, P.S. Akaltara, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa Versus ^ RESPONDENTS: l/ Raj Kumar Kliandaliya, Q^^d^e^ i^ / S/o Harishchand Khandaliya, aged about 54 years, R/o Sheorinarayan Road, Tahlsil Akaltara, P.S. Akaltara District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. L.P. Tiwari, S/o not known, aged about 46 years, P.S. Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ( 3. Ravindra Mishra, Aged about 56 years, District Prosecution Officer, District Janjgir- Chmapa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227^F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HiGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) N0. 732 OF 2010 PETSTtONERS (PIaintEffs) RESPONDENTS (Defendants) Kamaladhar and another Versus Raj Kumar Khandaliya and others. WRiT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTSTUTiON OF INDiA (Slnale Bench: Hon'ble Shri N.K. AaarwaS. J.) Present : Dr. Sailesh Ahuja, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Amit Sharma, counse! for respondent No.1. ORALORDER (Passed on 25th day of January, 2011) With consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finaity. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the triai Court dated 05-10-2009 (Annexure P-9) whereby the appiication for summoning Shri G.P. Malviya as witness, preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed is under assaii in the instant petition. 3. The facts in brief are as under: The Triat Court vide its order dated 21-03-2005, dismissed the application ofthe petitioners under Order 18 Rule 1 & 2 read with Sectjon 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC'), on the ground that the petitioners have not filed any iist of witness in accordance with the provisions contained in Order 16 of CPC. There against the petition preferred by the petitioners was dismissed on 21-04- 2009 as Withdrawn with a liberty to file an appropriate application before the Court below in accordance with law. The petitioners thereafter, preferred an application on 18-06-2009 showing it under Order 16 Ruie 1 & 2 of the CPC but without /^~\ 6 ^\ vr Kvr pleading any ingredients of Order 16, the same was also dlsmlssed by the trial Court, hence this petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Undisputedly, the petitioners have not filed any list of witnesses showing the name of Shri G.P. Malviya as their witness in terms of provision contained in Order 16 Rule 1 ofthe CPC nor have preferred any application showing sufficient cause for non- submission ofthe list ofwitnesses in terms of Order 16 Ruie 1 or for the omission to mention the name of such witness, whom he wants to summon through Court in the said list in terms of Order 16 Rule 3 of CPC, therefore, the iearned Court below has not committed any illegality warranting interfering of this Court under Articie 227 of the Constitution of India in dismissing the above application which is not in inconformity with the provisions contained in Order 16 Rule 3 of CPC. 6. it is weil settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itselffrom interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, iilegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 7. Accordingiy, the petition being devoid of substance is liabie to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. However, the petitioner js free to move an appiication before the Trial Court for summoning the witness in terms of Order 16 Rule 3 of the CPC. —~ Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge