w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (Art.227) No.895 of 2011 Petitioner Vikki Panjwani, S/o. Shri Kanhaiya Defendant No.3 Panjwani. Aged about 24 years. Rio Katora Talab, Shiv Mandir Gali, Tehsil-Raipur. District-Raipur Versus Respondents 1. Bharat Mala Slo Shn Radhaji Bhai Plaintiff No.1 Mala. Aged about 43 years R/o. Badodafa, Gujrat 2. Nitin Mala, S/o. Shri Radhaji Bhai a» Mala. Aged about 48 yeats. R/o.j-* Badodara, Gujrat Plaintiff No.2 Hansh Maia, Slo Shn Radhajl Bhai Mala Aged about 45 years R/o, Badodara Guirat (Respondent No.1-3 through their Power of Attorney. Shrl Mangat Rai Jindal, Slo. Shri P.C. Gupta, Rlo. M.G. Road. Raipur. Tehsil and District Ralpur (C.G.) Anish Shah, Slo. Shri Premji Sha, Aged about-38 years. Rlo. Mahavlr Colony, Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.) Rajesh Shah. S/o. Shri Premji Shah, Aged about 45 years. Rlo M G Road Ralpur. Tehsil and Dlstnct Raipur (C G) (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Plaintiff No.3 Defendant No.1 Defendant No.2 MLPawan Kesharwani. counsel for the petitioner. None present for the respondents. (SB: Hon’bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORDER (oRAL) (10-8-201 1) . By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 1 1 2011 passed by the 1" CMI Judge Class-Ii Ralpur in Civil Suit No.2A/2010 to the extent of dismissing the application for permssion to examine the witnesses under Order 16 Rule 1 (2 & 4) of the C.P.C. . l have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned and other documents filed on behalf of the petitioner. h ~ g_ VS? 3. Wde order impugned the Court below has dismissed the application and. has observed that the plaintiffs are ready to produce the witnes‘ses for» r examination, therefore, no such application is neceseary. The Court beiow e has also provided opportunity for producing the witnesses for evidence. ”A 4. in case of necessity of assistance of the Court in summoning the witnesses, pennission to examine and list of witnesses under Order 16 Ruie 1 of the C.P.C. is necessary. The parties are at iiberty to examine the q witnesses by producing them without assistance of the Court in terms of Ruie 1A of Order 16 of the C.P.C. 5. While dealing with the question of mentioning names in the list in temis of {Q Order 16 Rule ,1 of the C.P.C. for the purpose of examination of witnesses even without assistance of the Court the SupremerCourt in the matter of is Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan and others (AIR 1983 SC 925) has held that list for examination of the witnesses is necessary when the party seeks assistance of the Court for issuance of summons, but if the party himself produces the witnesses without any assistance of the Courtthen it is not required to me such list and the party is competent to examine those witnesses in terms of Rule 1A of Order 16 of the C.P.C. 6. Although the Court below has dismissed the application, but has permitted the petitioner for their examination by producing the same. in these circumstances, l do not find any illegality in the order impugned warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/— T.P. Shanna Judge