In the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur WP (227) - __^L1^____ I 2010 Petitioner/ PIaintiff Respondents / Defendants ^ ^ ft^"''-s, ,'f''.. T.B" "?''&<>>. ^A "'^ — .. ^%t'^ " <:" .-^ ^ ~ "^. '•%>'n N'4'? M/s. Sanjay Agrawal, Thro' Sanjay Agrawal, 49 Yrs., S/o Shri Rama'uftaar Agrawal, 9, South Avenue, Chaubey Colony, Raipur Versus ^l. State of Chhattisgarh, thro' Collector, Raipur, Collector Office, Raipur ^2. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Balauda Bazaar, Raipur -3. I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd., Ghore Parisar, Civil Line, Raipur, Teh. & Distt. Raipiir Petition Under Art. 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia .^' . ^••"^lf'\'''-'• >»^<^-^' ^°s^- ^f^:^""" '^-" > HIGH COURT OF CHHAT11SGARH AT BILASPUR :! Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) NoA48 / 2010 PETITIONER PLAINTtFF RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS VCTSMS M/s Sanjay Agrawat State of Chhattisgarh & others. Shri Raja Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State. wrar pErmoN UNDER ARTICUE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INTOA . "'.-"n:?? ORALORDER (26.82.20TO) The petitioner herein is (^aintiff in the trial Court. He has filed a suit to restrain the defendant No. 3 from makirg payment ofthe subject Bank guarantee to the defendant No. 2. From the ptaint, it appears that the plaintiff was engaged as contractor to execute contract fer constructton of road aml has submitted a Bank guarantee as performance guaranteed. Tte (tefendant No.2 proceeded to jnvoke the Bank guarantee compelling the plaintiff to ftte the present suit. (2) After fiiii^ of the written statement the plaintiff moved the subject applteation under Order 18 Rute 1 read wrth Sectton 151 of G.^.G^ (Anrexure P/4) inter alia statng that in para Nos. 2, 3 &6 ofthe written statements the defendants have admitted the plaint averments made by the plaintiff, therefore, the defendants should be directed to begin evklence before the plaintiff begins the evklence. ^ (3^ The trial court has rejected the prayer by observing that the statement made by the defendant has not shifted the burden of proof ^on the defendants, therefore, the application cannot be allowed. 1c z. (4) Having perused the relevant part of the plaint, the written statement and the plaintiTfs application under Order 18 Rute 1 C.P.C. this Court is satisfied that the order passed by the leamed trial Court does not call for any interference as by the statement made in the relevant paragraph of the written statement the burden of proof has not shifted. (5) Therefore, there being no patpable or manifest error of jurisdtetton conwnitted by the trial Court, the instant petition under Articie 227 ofthe Constitution of tndia fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd//- -q- -- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge N