:C—78 s^i?ir1%;iw ^qisn^r'aCTTO 3^1' ^||<4|(«1><4, ^Tny'l^, (slrtl'yy WTCW *N135 .^).......^.o..9...^ an^?r ira% (1pf^^) Vt. 200 •FEtIRR^ittTS^ Petitioner/ Defendant Mo^id. Arif, S/o Late Mbhd. Ahmed, aged abotit 54 years, R/o. Near Ban^iri Mandir, Gol|s Bazar, Raipur, Through his Power of Att^mey Holder namely Mohd. Amin, S/o Mot(d. Arif, aged about 25 yeara, R/o Banjari Chc^wk, Gole Bse.ar, Raipur, Kstrtot Raipur (C^). Resoondent/ Plaintiff Bh abcjut 68 yeare, R/o Near Banjari h4andir, Go (Writ Petition under Art Sinale Bench: Hoi e Bazar, Raipur, Dfetrict Raipur (CG). |cle 227 ofthe Constitution of India) k'ble Shri Justice L.C. Bhadoo 7-1-2008 Shri Manoj Paianjape, By this writ petition undw| petitioner/defendant, who is a tenai the order dated 24-12-2007 passed suit N0.84-A/2006. 1 have heard leamed counse The main grievance of the pi closed on 14-8-2007 and thereafte petitioner herein. In the meant Evidence of one witness ofthe petlti fixed for orders on application witnesses on commission as per thi Civil Procedure. That apptication matter was further adjoumed to 24-1 qipiferih •wraftf.ft^ TRRSR ^sifin sii^i -Versus- •atlal Sahu, S/o Late Jiyalat Sahu, aged coun^el for the Detttioner. lAftfcte 227 (rf the Constitution of India the ft, has questioned the legality & cfrrectness of |by the First Civil Judge Qass-1, Raipur, hi c'lvil I for the petBioner. ^tttionw is that the evidence of the ptaintiff was the matter was fnced for the evidenoe of Bie i|ne, written statement was ateo amended. ibner was recorded. Thereafter the matter was fil^d by the petitioner for examination of the )4 provisions of Order 26 Rute 4 af the Code <rf ^ias flxed for ordere on 17-12-2007 and ttw 112-2007. ^i^wfemi' SIa'li'o •S^cf "t||.i<l<?i->), 0Tfl<i'l(o, Rl<r>l'Hy ^IKrtl shNI* .^..^..&. an^?r tR% W^ 200 wiiwgftg aii^i <*w(<")4-< titlcii 'if.ft^ <R<«ti< ^? aiiOT sii^t, ^ .' Learned coursel for ttie the petKioner was already allowed who are outsiders. Vide impugnetfl the application, but dosed the evid^ per the list, about eight witnessesl thdt one opportunity be granted witnesses on atfidavits and the cross-examination. He submits adjoumment. This petition arises out of| therefore, issuance of nottee to th< further delay the proceedings of th^ respondent himsetf. Leamed trial petitioner/defendant for examinaticin closed whole evidence. Even pte| wfl'tnesses and he closed his prayer made by leamed counsel ftj am of the opinion that it is petition deserves to be allowed wit(i petitioner may be altowed to flle bring them on the next date of eiamination ofanywitnesses on However, it is made dear tt by this order, he will be at Yibei^/ clarification ofthis order. . Accwdingly, the writ petitior affidavits of his vwtnesses by21-1- opposite counsel in advance and unneces^aiy aflldavits peftioner submte Ihat vkte order dated 18-1-2005 (o examine witnesses No. 7 & 8 on commisston, |ofder leamed Civjl Judge has not only rejected snce oflhe petitioner herein as well whereas as Iwere still to be ®(amined. He further submits to the petittoner to fite the evidence of the opjxxtunjty may be gwen to the opposite side for |lhat the pelitioner vrflt not seek any further eviction suit, which is pending sjnce 2003, respondent is unnecessary because that witl eviction suit and that will be detrimental to ttie pourt has not only rsjected apptteation of the of Iwo vwtoesses on oommission but ateo IntifT took lot of time for eiamination af hfe only on 14.8.2007. Therefwe, tooking ta the (r the petitioner and in the interest of justiee, 1 to issue notice to the respondent and this a direction to the subordinate Court that the of all the witnesses and he wB) himself Tor cross-examinalipn wBhout insteting for hea|ing cofnmlsslon. t^at stHt the respondent^>taintfff Teete aggiiewed toeify move an application for modMicaton and is allowed. The petitioner is directed to file -p008, copies of the same be delwered to the his witnesses present before <he Iria) Court kejep V^-IS •;i"^?nwiw ?e'i 3IR;T *4i+' s^r ^(^•>), ®T(1y'Ke,Ri^iyy ^.....^A.T=?..{C^Q/ •qraw ^^••-•—--•"•-•••-^;;:^'^-—/--^ 200 an^riRW (ipf=p?tr) on 28-1-2008 & 29-1-2008 for exslinination clear that no further opportunity wilt| Consequently, \A. No.1 starfds ^Fiferih intrai tfft'at •rfw5K ^sifOTSiI^T by the opposite counsel. tt is made be given to the petitioner herein. disposed of. S&l- L.C.»hado° judge