^, C.& -['^- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR z-A W.P. (&) N0-2^ OF 2008 Petitioners Plaintiffs f^ Respondents Defendants 1. Gajendra Kumar, S/o Chintaram Satnami, aged about 7 years /2. .Abhik, S/o Chintaram Satnami, aged about 4 years. (Both minor, through their Grand Father Dauram, S/o Ferha Satnami, aged about 55 years, Occupation — Cuitivator, R./o Village Faijpur, P.0. Bhurta, ' Tehsil Nawagarh, Dtstt. Durg (C.G.) Versus ^ Malikram, S/o Bhagwati Satnami, aged about 32 yeara, Cultivator and R/o Village Harmundi, Tehsil Nawagarh, Presently residing at- Shankar Nagar .(Talab Para),.Nawagarh, Post Tehsil. Nawagarh, Distt. Durg State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector, Durg,, Distt. Durg (C.G.) : WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIC1E227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA i 'ii; ^.. XI-HC—7S S(I%?T v\ h-u<h 'flfSH STI^T 9P*1iqi ^se. ^ ^ S^ET ^I^I^AI^ ffiil'y'is, fqciiy^ —^i?...^i)...^.°..^.a.^..i2^' ffrt^' 3T[^I TTa^ (ipfg^ET) ?^iTW(ri?g ai^i ^T^fd^ ^R^ff ^ "f^ST ^-^K ^siRpTOT^r SIN6LE BB4CH: HOMlLE JUSTICE OHIRBMOM MISHRA rennoNERS Plaintiffs Vs RESPONDENTS/ Defendonts W>. ffi No.2St7-W8 (Petition U/A 2|27 of the Constitution of Indio) 1. S^jendra Kumar, 5/o ChintonuB Satnami, a^ed cfeout 7years. 2. /[bhik, 5/o Chintaram Sotnami, oged aiaout 4 ypors. (Bot|i minor, through their Grond Father Dau4m, S/o Ferhu Sattwmi, aged obout % yeor^, Occtyatton-CMltivcrtor, R/o Vitlqge FqUf^ir, P.0. Bhurta, Tehsil, Na«<gorh. Wstt. t>urg|(C.6.) t. A|lalikrom, S/o Blwgwoti Satnami, oged <4>out 32 years, Cultivctor ond R/o Villogc l^ormundi, Tehsil NaKfagarh, Presently r^stelin9 al- Shankar Na9»- (Talab PtB'a), hfowagorh, Post Telwil, Nawagarh, Oistt. C(ur9. 2. ^tate of ChhattiS9<rh, Thnnigh Ihe qollect-or. Dur9, Distt. Durg (C.6.) 14.07.2008 Mr. Sanjoy Shyam A^Fwat, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Sahu, Adv. -Ijor respondent No.l. Mr.SushilDubey, 6.4 whereby leamed Additiona for respondents No.Z-State. Heard. By this petition undejr Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has inyuyieef Ihe order of Annexure P-5 datBd 24.4.08 &istrict- Judae (frTC). Bemetcusi, Distrjct ,Jl.i,,ii, r^ IISP' Xi-HC—78 3TI^?I ^T K;-l ^T STi^T ^TffoR' ^ST '<1WM^, ®tl1'Mil<o,fqdiyy a;(R?ITT5R7 (' p) TCnw^ife aii^i ^rafld'^H ^IiT^lf ^ fe^ 'iCf^i^R' ^'srRtHan^i -z. Anr»kure ^.: t)urg has reject-ed the re' review of order of opportunity of petitioners/j: Leamed counsel for the plaintiffs sought adj< advocate of •the plaintiff is may be given on paynient o] the ptaintiffs were presenl ground that earlier also 1+i| pcyment cost for adducing the petittoners/pbintiffs bereavement in •tfie famiht therefore, he could not above opplication, affidmit^ were also filed by the p| petition was also rejected on 14.3.20)8 wi-hwsses examine them and thereforl Leomed counsel forj Annexure P-1 A P-5 are i^iew petition of •the petitioners filed for P-1 dated 14.3.2008 by whid) the llcuntiffs to lead evidence has been closed. fthe petitioners submits that on 14.3.2008 (jumment on the graind that 1he senror jnot present WKI therefore, cn adjoumment if cost. On •thort' date also •the witnesses of j, however, •the ppayer was rejected on the plaintiffs were given hst opportuni-ty on ^he evklence. A review petition was filed by mentioning •therem that thwe was of senior counsel for •the pkiintiffs ond •the court-on 14.3.2008. Along writh the of uritnesses under Order 18 Rufe 4 of CPC ititioners/plaintiffs. However, the review ]>y the court- below with an observation tlwt present but •the counset refysed to i, opportunity to tead evidence wns ctosed. respondent No.l submits -that orders of in accordance with kn». The petitioners attlend wlere strjctly .^^, B!,,...!!Sa 1 s;sSSIS""'i 1 ^&iE@S^E I [-HG—78 S^f W (<;-f 'cTsn •3H^?T ai^ish A -F ^^ ^ST •^ii<<ici'4, sitil-H'is, fi«niylj,< sn^i'tra^r (' p) TOITW ^iftg .BI^I ^i^h'NhT ^ww ^f 1^TST Tf^i^K ^sTfgHsnt?! -•"•>• failed to exumine the witne^ses despite they wereafforded several opportunities for tha* pui^io» ond in these circumstances no interference is called for. I have heard leamed c^unsel for 1he part'ies. I have perused the impugned orders. Taking into considerati reason assigned for cbsence the opinion that court below In the result, -riie pe 24.4.2008 (Annexure P-5) & aside subject to poyment of n the faet- -that the suit hes been filed by the minors 1hrou9h 1+ieir nijitural guardian and also consklering the iof the senior counsel on 14.3.08,1 am of ^ught to have offorded la$t opporhinrty to •the ptaintiffs to odduce evide^iceon payment of suitable cost. rttion is oJtowed, impugned orders dated 14.3.2008 (Armexure P-1) are hereby set cost of Rs.1,000/- by the petitioners/ ptaintiffs. The parties are direc+ed to cppear before the court' below on 28th July, 2008 on which dort^the court- below diatl fix a date in -the 2ml week of August, 2008 for re^ording of evidence of the phintiffs. It is made clear -thatno adjoumm|ent shall be giyen to the plamtiffs on the date fixed by -the trkil court- |for cdducing evidence. Consequently, I.A. No.| also stands di^posed of. ^f^ ^^?