f /i L2 (n. r. stic rtier Diwakar) Ho M Jue Pink WRIT PIO ETITN (227) No. 1354f2009 -0 1 . Arun umar, o Bshilal Gupta, ged about 28 years. resh Kumar, son f Banshilal Gupta, age about 26 years. . Hemant Kumar, on o anshilal Gupta, age abou v23 years. Mahesh Kumar, on of Banshilal pt, aed bout ears. Smt. Prabha Devi Gta widow of' La Banshil Gupt, age about 6O year ll residents of Basantpur, Near New Krishi Upaj Mandi, ajnandgao CG) II Srkant arda, son of Shri Ratanlal a (Plaintiff) ra, d t 5 years, resident of Thetwarpara, Rainandgaon. Mr. B.P. Sharma an M. Vivek Chopra counsel th petitionrs None to the respondent. f WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (22.04.2069) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated t, 02.01.2009 passed by Civii Judge,0lass Ii, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No.73-AI2008 whereby the court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AT BILA$PUR PETITIONERS: Defendants K sn of an a Su o d d t s f B s Gua g a 18 y up, te al a d s A Rn ( (hwN- VERSUS REsPONDENT i S Sad age abou 4 d r for e e. Brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this petition are that a suit for eviction was filed by the respondentlplaintiff in the year 1992 impleading the petitioners ,t as defendants. On 19.11.2008 i.e. after about 15 years the petitioners fried an application proposing five new issues to be framed which are as under: “(warmm‘dm'éaimmm Wmgwmmwws? (mwummmwmiimmwm gwahasgaimmmmmé ‘Wmwwwm‘amws? (W) Wwmmnmume wwmsmmmah mmemsiths? ‘ (a) waistmawdm‘mwm’ emaieaamnmamwme‘ww maewinimaé’ié? (3.) wnmahm'mmew ‘fimauims?’ The repiy te said application was filed by the respondent/plaintiff vide (Annexure P-4) in which it was submitted that issues/have already been framed, evidence of g, r the plaintiff has already been closed long back and the matter is i pending for evidence of the defendants since long but in stead i of adducing the evidence, defendants are tiiing one application i or the other. !V Considering all the aspects of the matter and the earlieri issues framed by the court below, the Court below Vide order i l l §7 #5,, impugned rejected the application filed by the defendants under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure; It has been put forth by the ,petitionersfdefendants that the e order is illegal and runs contrary to the provisions of Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civit Procedure. Heard counsel for the petitioners/defendants and perused the material available on record including the order impugned. While passing the order impugned the Court below has rightly observed that the proposed nve issues are not necessary for final adjudication of the matter because the issues framed earlier cover each and everything and me defendants can adduce evidence accordingly. This Court finds no iilegality in the order impugned and there is no error apparent on the face of record making this Court interfere-with / the same. Accordingly, the petition being without substance is v liable to be dismisse/d/and ituis; dismissed as such. Suit is said to be pending since 1992. The Court below is directed to dispose of the suit at the earliest. Parties are expected to co—operate the court below for early disposal of the suit. Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker; Judge 32?