.A-; .}• •tl. .^ :ffli*r <b ^^, \6/- IN'i'HEHrcrHCOURTOEJUDieATUREATSlLASPU.l^^C.G.l WRIT PETITIQN N0. ^3 s-6 /2005 PETITIONERS ylrti^-ri-Pp^. ^j^ ^^/ :.••''..;.\<^'l: O"' K ^y? '^' ^l., - Shivram S/o. Dha^arain, aged ab6ut58 years. -- ff.. Hemlal S/o. Dhajaram aged about 42 years. 3. Banara.si, S/b. Shivram, aged abouf 38 years. /4. Ramkumar, S/o. Shivrnm aged about 28 years. 1. Kanti Kiunar, S/o. Shiv:ram, 'age^. about 28 yesu's. i:i'\S..£•IN:::.^^ ^®':'^^®^t^f^ ^K^t^Uage-Tu.ri,'(31-towki;.•:.••':;1: Nawagai-ti, TUana- Shivrinarayan TahsiI-Janj^r- Ghampa (C.G.) VERSUS ^ Gangaram S/o. Shreerani aged 43 years, Gaste-Kurnli, R/o. Village-Turi, Chowki Nawagarh, Thana^Stnvrinarayan Tatisil- Janjgir-Ghampa (G.G.) W]?!TUNDERAR'nCLE227QFTHEGONSTI'FU'nQNQI<' INIIAFORIISSUANCEOFASUITABEEWRIT, QRDBRS OR DIR3CTION. '; ,~. / ', : ' i TheaLovenaxnfidpetitioner^ogthumblya^ begittosi-ibmitasuhder:- /: '[ ':.''S^: RESPONBENT jE>^^-t>'e.^-r r^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BII.ASPUR SB : HON'BLB SHRI JUSTICBN.K.A6RAWAL W.P.NO. 4986/2005 PETITIONEI^ Shiwam and Others 7ersus RESPONDBNT Gangaram WRTT PETITION UKDER ARTK;U; 226/227 OF THE COllSTrTOTION OFIHDIA ABpearance: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel,counsel for the respondent. ORAL ORDER (06.08.2009) With the consent of leamed counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 6.8.2005 passed by the Second Civi! Judge, Class II, Jarygir in Civil suit No. 12-B/2005 whereby the leamed Court below closed the opportunity of leading evidence of the plaintiffs/petitioners. Brief facts of the case are that the appellate Court i.e. Third Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) Janjgir vide order dated 11.10.2004 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 4/2004 has allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs and the matter was remanded back with the direction that the plaintiffs/petitioners shall remain present before the Court on 26. 10.2004 and the trial Court shall fix the date for evidence of the petitioners with an embargo that no further adjoumment wfll be granted. Thereafter the matter was fixed on 26.10.2004 and on the saine day the plaintiffs fited their affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC and the matter was fixed for evidence on 10.03.2005. On that date the R-esiding Officer was on leave and therefore the matter was fixed on 2.4.2005and the plaintiffs counsel conceded that due to the mistake on his part they did not come to the Court as they were not intimated about the date of appearance and prayed for a short date to examine the witnesses which was rejected by the Court below. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the naistake has been committed by the counsel and due to that the plaintiffe ^ I. should not be penalized and in the circumstances one more opportunity be given to them. Per contra, Shri P.K.Patel, counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned. He further submitted that in case the petitioners are allowed to adduce their evidence by this Court then it should be by imposing some cost. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court is of the opinion that one opportunity should be given to the petitioners to adduce their evidenee, therefore order iinpugned is quashed and it is directed that the trial Court shall allow the plaintiffs/petitioners to adduce the evidence if they produce the same before the Court within a period of one month from today subject to payment of Rs. 2000/- as cost which is payable to the respondent. With the above direction, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- N.K-Agrawal Judga lltSiflfi^ :-^a"a+ta^~*5«wtfl^-