J25»; A #k ' f 7 w; ( 3% c ' V §k§ww ma 8mm IN THE HIGH COJRT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Petitionégg Writ No. WW?) 12006 , / Lala Ram aged 39 yéérs §on ofShri Bhairo Petltloners LRXamigA’Q'?) ¢§ Prasad, Caste Kurmi, resident of Village b4- .' CX‘ a Pendri, Tahsil Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur 'v‘1"/ é (C.G.) v ‘ / Q.$ Q“ e» ‘ 56" § q, ‘x ”f. Ox VERSUS 86‘“ / 1. Onkar Prasad son of Ghanshyam Prasad Respondent: t veg‘emcm‘iy Bhairo Prasad son of Amamath Both of them Caste Kurmi, resident of Village Pendri, Tahsil Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) r 3. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. XI—HC-78 3am,m ' .£'>/.:9.‘..Ca.9. “warm @ 9%.;9 11:: ' zoOé Wm(W) mwfim'm WWW WWW“ WW§WW ' I %31%w3TI%3T Shn' G.K.Beriwal, Dy. Ac Heard on admission; By way of this writ pet Constitution of India, the pe‘ validity and propn'cty of the ’ passed in civil suit No. 288-A/ 2005 by the Ilnd Civil Judge Class I Bilaspur. the learned trial Judge has closed By the‘ aforesaid order, evidence after rejecting his application filed under Order 17, Rule, 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and has nxed the case for defendants’ evidence. It :is stated at bar that the evidence of the defendants’ side has not been taken so far and the ma' ter is fixed for defendants’ evidence on 12. 12.2006. The submission of 1 though the petitioner had Witnesses, but for their perSo be brought on the date hx intention to give a full opp be given one more opportunity to produce his witnesses by setting ' aside the order impugned. ’ v After perusal of the o rv sheets nled by the petitioner, it appears that on 6. 10.2005, deposited with the Court and 22. 1 1.2006 Shri Kamal Pandey, counsel for the peiitioner. [vooate General for the State. ition, hled under Article 227 of the itioner has challenged the legality, impugned order dated 5.9.2006, the right of the plaintid‘ to adduce counsel for the petitioner is that dy submitted-the ahidavits of his al reasons, the witnesses could not by the trial Court and with an ty to contest his case, he should davits from the petitioner side were since the Presiding Judge was o n / e e o d a i XI—HC-78 @J ‘Fg .111 200g a w , m , m 11mm .m:?..~..é.9 WW(W)" WWW WWW ,mmmm P L” . WW§WW i %a¢%wan%$r )r 27.10.2005, but on the said date on leave and ultimately, the matter n‘ 7.1.2006, it was against nxed for 4.4.2006 and since 4.4.2006 till :s Were given to the plaintiff, but he sses and in the said circumstances, the uial Court has passed the afOIesaid order, which does not this Court. However, considen'ng the ' appear to be unreasonable .tO facts and circnmsfances oi. intention to do the cOmp1e1 particulax facts and circumstz award one more opportunity to the. plaintih‘ to produce his 1 dispose of the case in accord done subject to the conditio defendants a sum of Rs.1O allowed to take further steps aforesaid cost imposed agains ' disposed of in the afomsaid m ather side. However, if the opposite manner without notice to the party feels any grievance against the order passed by this Court‘in leave, the matter was &ed 'f( also’ the Presiding Judge was was fixed for 7.1.2006 and o the p1aintifi’s evidence on 5.9.2006, 2 mom opportunith could not produced his witne evidence. The impugned cider the petition is disposed ofw plaintin' shall produce his all firstly take the evidence of shall proceed to take the evid z‘ this case, particularly with an e justice with the parties in the noes of this case, I deem it proper to e 5.92006 is hereby set aside and a dinection that on 12. 12.2006, the witnesses and the trial Court shall plaintin’s side and thereafter, it ce of the defendants’ side and shall 'ce with law. But, all this shall be s that-the plainn'h‘ shall pay to the O/- as the cost and he shall b‘e this case only after payment of the him. - y The petition is sum d i ' ‘ d e @ mm .w.fz...‘.é)§.€€fé.... a1 200 é, XI—HC-78 33W,mr§;f—Elamgt WW(W) WWW WW WWE ' ' mmwm 3” mmm ' 3€Wm this wn't petition, they shall ave a liberty to approach this Court with an appropriate applica ' n/ petition. the plaintm' fails to pwduce his all case shall stand closed and the the" case of the defendants by giving It is made clear that Witnesses on the said date, trial Court shall pmceed w A, them opportunity to adduce their evidence. It is further made L clear that if the plaintiffs ev nce could not be completed on the said date, it shall be takenvon the very next day. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands finally disposed of. Sdl— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge P.T.O. ' e i i e