[G—78 ^^ ^l'41<rl-4, y>iii-H4i(o, [q<ni^y *11*1CTI »*1|Ct» •^200 ^I^7TTRW (yif^^T) 3?T^r^Tf^FF TT^T 3TI^?T $bMi<=b S-. i^nw^f?n^n^r HiGH COURT OF CHjliAT-TiSGARH AT BILASFUK WPJT PETITIOt? 227 No. .3136/2008 PETiTIONBR PLAINTIFF Ver^iis Dhaiiiish|al Verma, S/o Late Agruram Verma, aged abo^it 48 years, R/o Bajgura, Tah. Lohara, Distt. Ka-^ardha (CG) RESPONDEST'S DEFE.NDANTS Smt, Jajvva Bai W/o Lat^ Sukalu Aiurat, $/o Sukalu Agai', S^o Siikalu, AI1 R/o vm: Telaibhat, Tali, & Distt. |Kawardha (CG) 4. Smt, A|o.rotui, W/o Netram, R/'o Devnagar, KharalajRoad, Tahiialai Dukaii, Nagpur (M,H,) 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. Smt. Khanila State of Kaward1 WRiT PETITiON UNDER ARTICL: SBLKGrrBi.B SHRi DHIRENDR^. MZSHRA,J Mr, Anaad Shukla, coims^l for tlie petitioner. Heard. By mis petitioii under ArtJ^J petitioner has ioipugnecl Uie or^er Clvit Judge Class-i & order dal Judge Class-i, Kabirdham, wli^ cM<<f<!1<?ly1 'RWJf ^ fSTCt' <H»lt^K '^3tRR3:n^3T AiifcrotmL, W/o Ram Smgh, R/o Devnagm', |Road, Tahiialai Dukan., Nagpzu' (M.H.) 1Chhattisgarh, through CoUector, Distt, ^a (CG) t 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA QKAt,QKpKK 2$-6-2008 Ue 227 oftlie Constitution ofindia, the ler dated 29.2.2008, passed by tlie 1st ;ed 15.4.2008, passed by the 2nd Civil Teby tlie appticafion of tlie petitioner ^c/j -HG—78 '3"^T ^iqi^q^ ^tl|<H1'|(o, ^KnKHy *11*1CTI «»*11<»» -^ 200 3n^?T1[T5RF ( ytl^^) 37T^T ^T ^Job TT^H 3TT^T sh^iah ^. ? ^TTW^T^T 3^?T -^ Gni^(ci<fll 'RR^ft ^ 'feTst <P»l<^l< ^F 3tRPT S^R under Order XViI, Rule 1 ofme C}PC for adjourament has been rejected aiid his subsequent appiication f^r review oftlie order dated 29.2.2008 has been further rejected. From perusal of the imp^gned orders, it is evident tliat the leanied CivU Judge had ^ranted last opportunity to the petitioneiVplaiiitiff to adduce h^s evidence on 29,2,2008. However, uistead of produciag any witness,| on tlie ground that one witness h| iii relation wifli soine Biardage c^ opportunities were ah'eady given applicatiou for adjouniment was filed ^s fallen sick, whereas ofher lias gone ^remony. The Trial Court, considermg the fact that me suit was pend^ng for Uie last 17 years; nuniber of to the plamtiff for adducuig evidence and Uie reasons assigned for adfiouniment are uot supported by aay dociiment, rejected the applicatioili.. Revie\v appllcation was also rejectecl on the similar ground. Iii the considered opuiion <jf Uiis Court, the Court below has not committed any megality, infirmit^ impugned orders warrantmg mte^ or jurisdictional error ui passuig Uie 1'ference ui tlie exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 ofthe Coiistitutlon of india. Petition is accordiiigly dism^ssed at the admission stage itselL Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge