^ '"7 [N THE HIGH COUET OF JUDICATLIE.EAT BILASPUE. CHHATTISGARH W P Mf, /~)353" ^^rfjrr\jr\^jj^ MDENT^ £- %^.^^- ^y^ >•••' ^\" ...••' ^^v".--"" Siu-e-shchandra Chaiidak S./o. Late Shri Girdhari Lal C^iaiida-k; A.dvocate,'E?Tn fi"oiit ofMaiiife -Ruyee Bhandar, Edward Road, Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur.(C.G.) VER.SUS SIl3y'sd Krirn3T Msnidev S/b. SIirl Bsiibsliadur Namdev, Aeed about 26 years, Occiipation Televigion Repa.i'riiig, R/o. Tulss Bsi No.nidev Bhawan, M.G. Road, Eaipiu', Talisil & Distt- Raipur (C.G.) ^e<...- <<e>-"" <^~ WRIT PETITION UNDER AETICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA pAnaiu HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 355 OF 2005 Sureshchandra Chaadak Versus Sharad Kuniar Nanidev a SB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri Maaoj Paranjpe, Advocate, for fhe petitioner.rf Shri Kshitij Sharma, Advocate for fhe respondent, ORALORDER (15-6-2011) fs. 1. Instant petition caUs in question the legality aad propriety of fhe order dated 10-1-2005 passed by the Vtb Civil Judge Class -1, Raipur whereby petitioner's/defendaat's appUcation for recaBiag plaiatiff for further cross-exanunation and for examioiug three new witnesses has been rejected. 2. Facts ofthe case ia briefare that the respondent ffled a suit for eviction of petitioner io. the year 1989. Plaintiff closed his evidence ia the year 1994, fhereaflier defendaat himself closed his evidence ia the year 2003 with the open eyes aiid only thereafter at fhe veige ofconclusion oftnal, iastant application has been filed. The same has beea disnussed by fhe trial Court holdiug the saine as not bonafide as the same has beeu filed after 15 years aod that too, at the stage of fiiial arguinent. 3. Haviag heard leamed counsel for the parties and havin; perused the order uapugned, I do not find any fllegality in. the order iinpugned warraatiag interference of fhis Court. After ;ivm.g fiiU opportuilily ofhearing to bofh the parties, fhe inatter has been fixed for final arguments, fhat too after 15 years of filuig of the suit, fherefore, at this stage leamed trial Court has i^htiy disinissed the application. 4. The petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge