IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No. ^^-^72010 ®aW8 PETITIONER ^ ^Iushir Ahamad aged about 39 years S/ /^^-r—S^T^^^ Sabbir Hassan R/o Ward No. 9 near Moharpara MajarPost & Tahsil Manendragarh Distt. Korea. VERSUS RESPONDENT^ /Tariyad Ahamad aged about 74 years ^^\<S?*^ S/oMurad Kh-an retired patwariR/o ^ O^ V' Ward No. 9, Near Moharpara Majar Pos ^\/-%'^' . & Tahsil Manendragarh Distt. Korea ^•\^' o ^ ^ " t)/r" WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE ^'^' ...--'' ^' ^ <Jk- ^ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 11.-.. T':.3E7!?'?3°:%SS£^-~; fflGH COURT ^ SJB: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition O.T^ No. 4975/2010 PETITIONER : MushirAhamad Versus RESPONDENT : FariyadAhamad Appearance: Shri Pars^ Kotecha, counsel for the petitioner. WMT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (01.09.2010) The toial court has rejected fhe petitioner/defendant's appUcation under Order 18 Rule 17 ofCPC for Fe-examination oftfae plaintiff. (2) The plaintifiTs suit for eviction and recovery of possession is pending before the trial eourt in which tfae evidence of plaintiffs witnesses were already completed and th®defendant has been granted several opportunities to produce his witoess. However, on the date when the case was fixed for recording defendant's witnesses, Ae subjeet application has been preferred. (3) Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view ofthe nature of the suit, it has become necessary to re-examine the (riaintifiC because the plaintiff has not clearly come out as to in what capacity the defendant was inducted in the suit pemises. He would furtfaer submit t, r^^;. £^"^ \:-.f4/i "^ ^- o that as long as the nature of occupation of the defaidant is not proved, the present suit is not maintainable. (4) In the opitiion of tfais court, ifthe plaintiflThas not been aMe to prove the nature of possession, it is the plaintifif who is likely to sufifer the consequences. Moreover, in tifaie application (Annesaure P-t) the defendant has not stated the reason as to why the plaintiff could not be examined on these aspects, when he tendered himself for cross examination, merely because the defendant or his lawyer forgot to ask some important questions, the same may not te a ground for re- examining the witness in exercise ofpower under Ofder 18 Rule 17 ofCPC. (5) In view ofAe above, the instant pe^tion under Article ^7 of Constitution of India, being devoid of any substanee fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge (y}