HIGH COURT OF^HHATTISGARH. BILASPUR PETITIONERS W.P.(2271 N0.2511/2008 1 C.G. State Electricity Board, C.G. Executive Engineer, Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 A.P. Namdeo,, Chief Engineer, C.G. State Electricity Board, Tifra, Biiaspur (C.G.). 3 A.M. Agrawal, Superintending Engineer C.G. State Electricity Board, Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 Anupam Sarkar, Assistant EnginSer, C.G. State Etectricity Board, Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur 2 Ram Kumar Agnihotri, S/oShriS.N. Agnihotri, Aged about 45 years, R/o Yadunandan Nagar, P.S. Civil Lines, Bi!aspur(C.G.)..............,....CIaimant 3 Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Through-Commissioner, Bilaspur 4 Commlssioner, Munteipal Corporation, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETiTION UNDER ARTICLE227 OF THECONSTITUTION QFiNDiA RESPONDENTS ^s.. Appearance: ~~ Shri Abhishek Sinha, Counsel for the petitioners. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for the State/r No.1. ORAL ORDER (02.05.2008} SUNILKUMARSINHA.J. -^-~; Heard on admission. t..'i~ W.P.(227) No.2511/2008 <r The petitioners/defendants have filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the orders dated 08.02.2008 and 22.2.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.3-B/2006, whereby, the applications filed by the defendants under Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) were dismissed by the said Court. It appears that in a suit for damages, after closing of the plaintiff's evidence, the petitioners/defendants filed certain documents along with the aforesaid applications. The first application was marked as I.A. No.08 and the second application was marked as I.A. No.09. The learned trial Judge dismissed both the applications (I.A. Nos.08 & 09) holding that the documents filed along with the appiications were the documents of the year 2004 and the defendants ought to have filed those documents at the appropriate stage of the suit. Referring to the contents of t.A. No.08, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that along with this I.A., the petitioners had filed the statements of Anupam Sarkar and Sanu Mishra, who were eye-witnesses, according to the petitioners/defendants, and they had atso filed the report of the Electrical Inspector prepared in the said case and the copy of the Line Maintenance Register. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submlts that the final report filed by the police in the criminal case was filed atong with I.A. No.09 and the Court below committed an error of law by not allowing these applications and taking those documents on record. 1 have heard leamed counsel for the petitioners and have also perused the records filed along with the writ petition. A perusal of the plaint would show that the civilsuit was filed on account of death of the son of the plaintiff/respondent No.2 and the said civil suit was pending since the year 2006, in which the plaintiff had already adduced his evidence and the petitioners/defendants, after completion of the plaintiffs evidence, \ had filed those documents along with the two applications under the aforementioned provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. A perusal 3 W.P.f227)No.2511/2008 ^ v Shyna of the order sheet would show that the petitioners/defendants' evidence has not been completed in this case, as according to learned counset for the petitioners, they have filed relevant affidavits of their witnesses and their cross-examination is to be conducted on some subsequent date. In such situation, without commenting on the merits of the order, 1 deem it proper to dispose of the petition with an observation that if the petitioners' so desire, they may produce Anupam Sarkar, Sanu Mishra, the concerned Electrical Inspector along with the relevant reports ete. and also the concerned Lineman along with the Line Maintenance Register before the Court in their evidence. !t is made clear that if the defendants have not cited these witnesses in their list, the trial Court shall give them an opportunlty to produce the tist of these witnesses and then, to calt them in accordancewith lawforthe purpose of adducing evidence in support of the defendants. It is also made clear that this order has been passed ex- parte, therefore, if the opposite party feeis aggrieved with this order, they shall be at liberty to approach this Court. This petitionastands finally disposed of. Sd'- 8uml^utnal 3udSe Stoha JS,