” " ‘3 a? "“ BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT -- BILASPUR a ; In the Matter of W.P.No. F/ :57 2003. Sathrughan Ram, aged about 43 years, son of Shri Bisahuram' Yadu, residsnt of 1. Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh). w w 2 Chamanlal son of Shri Ghasiram, aged %“(\ 0%.. about 46 ‘ years, resident of “Vk‘ ~ Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund. v" ax} VERSUS Vivek Kumar Dave, son ofShri /. years, Gyansyhankar occupation Dave, Contractor aged about Trimurti 42 I , / l Colony, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. RESPONDENTS 1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through :‘Collector ‘ ‘ :1 Mahasarrfurld (Chhattisgarh). g. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 27 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI—HC—zz 3mm w etition N. 193/2003, 1938/29 ' rit p os 7 ma 05 107 I2003 Shm . Shn SanJay K Agw' ar Deputy Advca ota Geera nl for the V Staté A11 ee‘wn't an Nos. 1937/ ( Visesar , alias Vishél s. Dashak ar), not n 30 ‘ and aher} ad 199/203 (Sathrugh Ram n t s V Vvek ar ava and another) are dsosed ths common ocr as th sank mlatcs‘to thc sac issue. m In e aosaid W petitions thc pctitionas have. “h fre I t I challenged he 01116 /0/003 passed the leanled Illrd .Qivil Judge, Class , hasamund ' wx Sult N05.1O— _A/ 20013, —A‘/003 and l /‘2002 respectively by which the learned Civi Judge x'ecorda that illspitg 0f the -issuallce of the summons the plaintiff$ tnesses Chhabi Ram JDiwan and Manarakhau ruV are n preset as Chhabi Ram Diwau r 1‘11 official work. Therefo,_ e is ‘ y re h 1 3 (Vh 938/ 200 ishcsar Bam n haha Vs ahas mst mquested that since he is b Klshore Badhun (iounsel for the petltloner these thr p m 2003 hh jat V d nothe an ad 0h r s i Kum D bemg 1p V- l rd e t 1 dated 757 bv I a m Cl { 432 A } l x i Dh o n / ‘ wableuto remain present before tlm Court and Manarakhan ”Dhruv'requested‘ that he is i'unable to remain t pmsent in the v Court Ion acbOuntrof-‘his ill-health. The’Court‘further recorded ‘ that-since .tljle matter is pe g'for mcording the evidence of n' .ihese two Patwaries since 07/ ‘ 1/2001 and the plaintiE' has not alh‘ng these Witnesses through / summons as witnesses, the fore, the plaintiE is directed to produce these Witnesses on his ovyn. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that these Patwaries are listed Witnesse all three Civil Suits and for that s ' puiposc RF. for issuance of ans wen: paid by the plaintiff s ’ m g‘ Iand accordingly these witness s alt summoned by the learned Civil Judge and they are. “not under the control of the plaintiff being a public servant unle and iintil they are summoned through the process of the rt, their attendance cannot be proc‘uied and they ale most rtant and maten'al Witnesses fo‘r ' o f/}"~. mov‘ed’ any application for J the decision of the dispute in the suit and without securing their attendance the right of the plaintiif will be seriously prejudiced and affected and the plaintiff; will suffer inepai‘ahle injury oy’ / we 9/ s u XLHC—22 “mm 1\ " accoiuit ofnon—examjnation 'c‘f These witnesses. Therefoxe, the vi " At the outset, learned co'unSél for the petiubnar veqr candidly anti frankly admitted that if the Court of the Civil Judge. c9mmands'by issuing Dasti summons, requiring the‘presence of those Witnesses. thev will my to secure the attendance of the Witnesses, and if anythingrhapipens Which is beyond the control of the pla‘intiE, then they will s'uhmit the report before the Coun. \He further submitted that in consonance with the order v 07/05/2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, the plaintiffs are also prepamd to file an application for summoning those , witnesses. I Counsel for The yetitionér at this stage submitted that the respondent no.1 was ex part‘e “through out in the proceeding because msoite of the service he did not appeali4therefore, in these petitions the order can be passed without issuance of _, ordérdf fhe learned Civil Jud’g¢. is not proper‘and legal J notice to that party as it is not going to effect the interest of the respondent no. 1. . "A New I Having heard ’the lean having ragard to the pecillia‘f ' Judge, and considering the facts and cimuiilsfanceS of the cas‘e b; just, proper and appmpn‘at' with a directibn that if the peu‘t respecfive cases pending b m€mioning therein that the. su for gffecting the ser’viCe (m the ( their attendance, then the learned Civil Judge to consider that application a11d pass appropl , sLunmcins tn? the plainti§ for 5m I Patwaries and if Patwarieagdo.‘ they can be summoned througl: . With the aforesaid 'ob sex disposed of. 1756/ 12003, 1757/ 2003, I.A.N 0.5813/12003, 5814/21903 and 58 15/2003 also stand disposed. of. ' Sd/- ( ’‘x Consequeut .erl counsel for the palties and sihmtion which has arisen out of v I a’m of the opinion‘that it would 3‘ to dispose of thesefwrit petitions oners move an application in their efore the leaned Civil Judge mmons maV be handed over Dasti oncerned Patwaries and procuring iate oxdcr t0 hand over the Dasti :uring attendaJaC-e of the concerned not appear inspite of service then bajlabi‘e warrants Vation, these writ petitions stand ty, M.W.P. Nos. 175Sj2003, L.C.BHADOO Judge