^ IN THE HON'BLB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL N0JM^of 2006 BBneK APPELLANTS: -^PLAINTIFFS ^ ^ .^' ^" 1. Anuj Kumar Yadav, son of / Shri Ramayan Yadav, aged 31 years, occupation agriculture, R/o. Village Mithilapur and Chharkona, Tehsil- Wadrafnagar and Kusmi, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) z Smt. Chandrakali Devi, wife of Shri Ramayan Yadav, aged 60 years, caste-Yadav, occupation-agriculture, R/o. Village Chharkona, Tehsil Kusmi, and Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS/DEFBNDANTS . Smt. Likhiya Devi, widow of Buddhi Narayan Yadav, aged 65 years Surendra Kumar Yadav, son of Late Buddhinarayan Yadav, aged 40 years, 3^-Sushil Ku. Yadav son of Late Buddhinarayan Yadav, aged 36 years 4. Ramakant Yadav son of Late Buddhina.rayan Yadav, aged 30 years, y' Kunjbihari Yadav, son of Late Buddhinarayan Yadav, aged 28 years 6;, Vedvyas Yadav, son of Late ^ Buddhinarayan Yadav, aged 28 years Respondents no. 1 to 6 R/o. Village Mithilapur, Tehsil-Vadrafnagar, District Sarguja (C.G.) r-~ 4 y. Khiloti Devi, daughter" of Late Buddhinarayan Yadav, aged 42 years B. Ninki daughter alias Chandravati of Late Buddhinarayan Yadav, aged 34 year& ^ Budu alias Madhuri, daughter of Late Buddhinarayan Yadav, aged 32 years Respondents no. 7 to 9, R/o. Village Putur, Post - Kataharkala, Distt Garhva (Jharkhand). 1Q< Chalo Devi, daughter of Late Buddhinarayan Yadav, aged 24 years R/o. Village Brijnagar, Tehsil - Vadrafnagar, Sarguja (C.G.) '" lL,Balkishore, son of Rampat Mahto, a^ed 46 years P/o Vill. Plilklb|ouy T&ky Vd TIdva^Tia^K , Saf^t.)0t, e.<ji ' •y- l^. Badri Prasad, son of Rampati Yadav, aged 36 years, Mithilapur , Te^i. Va^jolyoi-fnjsu^r . ^vy^'c.b^ IS^State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collectpr, Sarguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) , SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ' 1 ^® XI-HC-78 Hi+icii ?hm^» 3^T ^l^Krl^, ^TTl^^Ko, is|dl^l^< , s-4-^.^^5/^00^ ^[200 M 3TT^T^^ER (i^cj i^c< (^ST) 3TI^T^T^i<=+) ^TTW^T^TT^ ?^TT^K ^f?cT 3:n^T 18-9-2006 Dr. N.K. Shukia, Sr. Advo^ appeiiants. Heard on admission. The appeiiants have prefer| of Civi! Procedure Code again^ chl^f<v1<>Tl-l RT^TT ^f f^t <f^^|< ^^Tf^TW^T ate with Ku. Ritu Mishra, counsel for the red this second appeai under Section 100 •t the judgment and decree dated 16irn December 2005 passed by the |2f'a Additiona! District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ramanujganj in Civii Appeap No. 7-A/2005 whereby the appeiiate court dismissing the appeai preferred byjthe appeiiants has confirmed thejudgment and decree dated 28-11-1997 Ramanujganj in Civii Suit No. 13-^1993. This appeal has been preferred by the appeiiants on the foiiowing sub|stantiai questions of iaw:- 1. Whether the Court further time for addu 2. vv'hether the Court Order 17 Ruie 3 ofQ The undisputed facts as tra| beiow are that the suit was posted| 1997, however witnesses on behi day and prayer of counsei for t| passed by the Civii Judge, Ciass -i, beiow was justified in refusing ta grant sing evidence to the appeiiants ? beiow correctiy appiied the provisions of P.C. ? ^spired from the records of both the Courts |for recording piaintiff's evidence on 15-10- ^jf of the plaintjfr were not present on that ie appeiiants for one more time to iead XI-HC-78 HTH^tl $h^l<n 3^ET ^||<4|d<4, ^Tn<rl41<o, fsldl^y ..^..^A;.'.('.5/^ 200 ^' 3TT^r q^ra? (<ic<^s<^) 3n^r^r(<^i<+) <TS|T3TI^r^:rt^ ?^n'w^N:3T^ST --Z- evidence has been rejected on th^ the plaintiff, even then no witness) right ofthe piaintiffto iead eviden^ chi^I^41-i mwrf ^ te^ <^^i< ^3rf^T3TI^T ground that iast opportunity was given to ls were produced by him and accordingiy e was ciosed and the matter was fixed for evidence of the defendanis. There^ifter the appiication under Order IQiRuies ^/ 2 and 4 of C.P.C. was fiied by the| triai Court vide order dated 21-111 additionai evidence was rejected ^ given number of opportunities to ie ptaintiff, which was again rejected by the -1997 and prayer for opportunity to iead ^y a reasoned order that the piaintifr was ^d evidence for the iast one year, in spite of that, no witnesses were produce^' and in the aforesaid circumstances, the appiication cannot be aiiowed at th^ statements of defendants'" wiines judgment and decree dated 28-11-1 beiated stage. Thereafter, after recording ses, the suit was dismissed vide the |997 with a finding ihat the piaintiff has not been abie to prove his case. The aj>peai preferred by the plaintiff against the above judgment and decree has ^een further dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. Learned counsei ror the ap(|»eiiants contended that both the Courts beiow have proceeded under Order|17 Ruie 3 of C.P.C. as the piaintirr faiied io produce evidence in spite of bein^ given severai opportunities ror the same but the iearned Couri: beiow ought tcj have aiiowed the piaintiff one more time XI-HC-78 3Tl^T^T^i<=h cT8TT3TT^T9b^i<=b h^<^ f/- <41+1^11 Sh+lltft 3^T ^l^lol^, ^Tfl'H^^, f^crll^y .!.. s:^:.^o:.{^l^c6. ^> ^ 200 sn^rq^ra? (yii^<si<^T) ^TTW^cT^n^T -3" to iead evidence in the interest of as proposea aoove, anse ror con$ Taking into consideration | considering the materiai availabi4 3 of C.P.C. after ciosing the opportunities were aiready given,) was a circumstance where it wasl 3 of C.P.C., this Court is of the proposed by the iearned adjudication of this appeal. Thus dismissed and the same is hereb^ ct)i<M?<n41r< wrat* ^* te^ <f^<-^i< ^3ti^T3T[^T justice, therefore, the substantiai questions ^ideration and decision ofthe appeai. |the fact that both the Courts beiow after on record proceeded under Order 17 Rule lopportunity to iead evidence as severai lafter getting themseives satisfied that there necessary to proceed under Order 17 Ruie oj^inion that no substantial question of iaw as cot|nsei for the appeiiants is invoived for |:he appeai being without merit is iiabie to be dismissed at the motion stage itseif. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.