^^sytt IN THEHIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR :.;:';:-: '• '^ ••-';/': •WP(227);No.^52-7'20ir ^ .':: • PETITIONER PLAINTIFF / Shrimati Amrit Bai, Wd/o Late Shri Krishria Das Vaishnav, aged about 50 years, Cast- Vaishhaav, Occupation- Agriculture, R/o- Village- Darang, Tehsil - Champa, Disto-ict- Janjgir-Champa (CG.) At present R/o- C.S.E.B. Colony, Qr.No.N.F.79, Korba, Tehsil and District - Korba (CG.). Versus ,:'' 1. LakhmLal, S/o Dayaram, aged about 35 years, DEFENDANTNO.l Cast-Satnami.Vill-Pori, The-Champa,Dist-Janjgir-Champa DEFENDANTN0.2 ^2. ChbeduramBareth, S/oRamsaiBareth,agedabout-hd-A*t*sl~:*>>a<1 *« R/o- Umreli, The- Kartala, Dist- Korba,at present R/o- SitSiE^rkorba, Tehsil & District- Korba (CG.) ^fe-^ltlll DEFENDANTN0.3 ^3. GovemmentofChhattisgarhthroughCollector, Korba(CG.) WMT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SPONDENTS 'aAt'lt) _Xi—t-3^J33U HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIA8PUR Writ Petition (227) No. 532 of2011 PETITIONER PLAINTIFF Shrimati Amrit Bai VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Lakhan Lal & others WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aearwal, J.) Present : Shri RS Baghel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri GD Waswani, Govt. Advocate for State/respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 31.01.2011) 1. Heard. 2. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 22.11.2010, passed by the IInd Addl. District Judge (FTC), Korba in CivilSuit No. 2-A/2007, whereby the trial court has closed the plaintiffs right to adduce her evidence. 3. Brieffacts ofthe case are that: on 05.10.2010 the plaintiff/petitioner filed afEidavit of her witoesses Patiram and Buturam but they could not be crossexamined as on the request ofrespondents tfae case was adjoumed for 22.11.10. On 22.11.10, the plaintifTs witaess Biituram was present and he was cross examined but witness Patiram was absent and plaintifFs prayer for adjoumment ofGross examination of Patiram was rejected on the ground that Ifaree opportunities have /f^.1 1 -^y^ s ^.. ... ^' £? 'i^'sy already been given to the plaintiffvide impugnedorder. Hence this petition. I have heard the counsel appearing for the petrtioner and perused the order impugned. Considering the fact that plaintiff's witness Patiram was present on i.10.2010 before the court and he could not be cross examined on account ofprayer ofadjoumment made by the respondents, the trial court should have granted an adjoumment for the purpose of producmg plaintifTs witaess Patiram for his cross examination. In view of above, in the eonsidered opinion of this court, the order impugned is liable to be and is hereby set aside. The trial court shall provide one opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff to produce her witness Patiram and to permit the respondents for cross examination of said Patiram subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1000/- to the respondents on the next date ofhearing, and thereafter shall proceed to dispose ofthe case in accordance with law. Since this petition is heard in fhe absence of respondents, they are free to move with an appropriate application, ifaggrieved. No order asto costs. Sd//- N.K.Agrawal Judge Kvr