^^ SSif^ 411-J ^ 3ii^r?n^iR? 7f£TT 3TI^T»iTITt^ 3^ET '^W\tft^, ai-cfly'KS, fsfrtl^y WRW **<!<*> .y.;.fc..^2...3^S/o. an^r'^R; (^f^qgw) ^awHteTan^r Petitioner Defendant (shna Kumar Aarawal, S/o Shri Raiendra jmar Agrawa!, Rajdhani Collection, Shop N(||. 113, Chauhan Fiaza, Shopping Compiex, G|E. Road, Bhilai, Tahsil & District Dura (C.G.) -Versus- ResDQndent Dl-i.ntiff f1 jmt. TriDti Shivhare, vwfe of Shri Ram Babu, feed about 28 yeare through Power of jtiorney noidef aiin Kunai Jaiswai, K/o ol Industrial Area, Bhilai, Tansit and 17-1-2008:- Shri Ratan Pusty, counse A/2007 pending in the Court of 1 writ Detition auestionina the leaal Dassed bv leamed Addl. District Learned counsel for the d dated 29.12.2007 'rtself disciose +t-llyl<fl-<5p^ ^f^S T^I^R ^i'siRmsn^r |>*2^nr*t Hiirn /F1 ^ ^ (Wnt Petition under Article 226/227 ot the Constilution of India) Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shrl Justice L.C. Bhadoo for the Detitioner. Heard. The oetitioner, who is deffendant before the court below in Civil Suit No.31- Addl. District Judge (F.T.C.) Durg has filed this tv and correctness of the order dated 29.12.2007 Judae wherebv evidence of oetitioner-defendant herein has been closed on the aijound that no witnesses were oresent. etitioner submits that the second line of the order that defendant himself was present but he was nol examined. Incorrect Droceedina has been recorded that no witnesses of the defendant were oresent wheresfs Ihe defendant himself was oresent. He funher submits that the resDondent/ptaintiff herein took 3 adlournmenls for aaducina the evidence and that was aliowed. Dn the tast date l.e. 28.11.2007 her evidencewas ciosed and the matter was fixed for recordina the evidence of the detendant. On l' <|SB?-».,, 'SI-HC—7S 1 f ^K-.^"' ^' 3^r •^ww<-i, OTfly'Kc, (sKTiiyy, 3D^f ^iT R-li^ '^siTT SH^T sti^i'^ an^r TR% (ipf^^tT) ^giw ^ftsi sntw that dav, the imDuaned orcier tor oassed. At the verv outset, learneB counsel'for the Detitioner submite that if the oetitioner is aiven one opDortuniN one more witness i.e. his young^r brother. He will adduce the evidence on that dav. Praver made bv learned reasonable. As issuance ofthe notice vjfill further delav Droceedinas ofthe suit and the order imDuaned is ex facie oeh notice to the resDondent is not modification of this order. As thel the defendant himself was oresenj 29.12.2006 is auashed. The thai C.C. todav. ^{'4T<rt-41l TFFMf ^ft^ ^^K ^i'aiRiiTan^r 'losina trte evidence ol ttie defendant has been for evidence, he wants to examine himseif and counsel for the Detitioner is iust, fair and terse, therefore, at this stage, issuance of the necessarv. !f the resoondent herein still feels aaarieved bv this order, she vjfill be at libertv to move an aDDlication for order passed bv the trial Court is Derverse, as , therefore, order dated 29.12.2006 deserves to be auashed. In the resuit, the petilioili is allowed and the imouaned order dated Court is directed to aive one oDDortuniiv to the Detitioner herein to examine himsftf as well as his vounaer brother. The oetrtioner is directed to produce himself aitd his vounger brother on 18"' Februarv. 2008 before the trial Court for evidencfe. If the defendant/Detitioner and his vounger brother tail to adduce their eviden4e, their evidence shalt stand closed. Writ Detition is disoosed of.l Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge