T C^,>.1. INJHE HIGH COIIRT OF JLIDICATURE AT BILASPJIR WR[T PETITION N0. 2-~~73o /2005 PinilIONER DI<:1BNDANT Guiab S/o Villeshvvar Gupta, aged 65 years, R/o Darripali, Raigarh (C.G.) -VERSUS- Rt^SI>ONDENTS 1>1,AINIII'FS ^...<\ ^0<^\>: ^^>"" Chandreshekhar Gupta/Ganesti Ram Gupta, aged 62 years, R/o Vi 1lage-Baghaclo 1a, Raigarh (C.G.) Ghasiya Gupta, S/o Ganeshrain Gupta, aged 56 years, Village- Baghadota, Raigarh (C.G.) ^ / WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT, ORDERS OR DIRECTION. rrhc above named petitioner inost humbly and respectlully begs to subitiit <is undcr: " XI-HC-22 W^TGRT ^[WW^T BWhFffft?T 3^T ^TraRfsr, ^x{1<lll<o, ^ldwy 3ll^lMsici^ 1TTq7TTSRWT9?^t^"^*"t#<^4'"^ 200 3TT^?T 5RTTW ;Hf^'cT Art-icle 227 of the Constitution i validity and propriety of the or cni<4l^i4lt *iii<CTi<i|fftFfl><Ri<^i< ^3lf^ff3IliST 08-07-200S Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, c^unset for the petitioner. Heard on the question of o|dmissi6n. The petitioner has pref^rred this writ petition under ^f India questioning the legality, der dated 25-6-2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Clas|s-I, in Civil Suit No.36-A/2004 whereby 1+ie learned trial Court ^ias rejected the prayer made by the petitioner herein for allowir|g him to produce the witnesses namely Narendra Kumar ond Sur€|sh. The facts in brief which a^e necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that the resp^ndents herein filed a civilsuit before the Court below against -^he petitioner herein for specific performance of the contract an^l prayed that the defenctant be directed to transfer the land in| question mentioned in Schedule 'A' in favour of the plaintiffs b^ a registered sale deed,ond in case the defendomt refused to bxecute the sale deed then the Court should execute the ^ale d^ed in their favour. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed the framed and the pbintiffs hove c writt-en statement, issues were >sed their evJdence, The matter was fixed for evidence of the pe^itioner. ^) XI-HC-22 3TI^T^)T R^i<=b3T1^T ^ich^cT "^-- i»—. 3^T ^Mldq, ^Tfl^^l^, f^^l^y 311^1 MUcn ;. Ls'fi ^ .^.^f.<?/ °^ ^IH^tT^^lch ^ 200 Id^< ^TT^T^dTW^rfN' Perusal of order sheet <=bi^I<n41'i Hwff ^'^=St <F^^i< Idarted 23-6-2 [^^_ on that day the petitioner hereir <xnd two other yvitnesses namel produced the affidavit of himself ly Lalit & Sahebram and for cross- examination of those witnes^js coun^l for the plaintiffs sought an adjoumment. Accordingly, t(ie matter was adjounwd for 25-6- 2005, On that day a requesl^ was alsp made on behalf of the petitioner herein that he wojnts to summon two witnesses as without summoning it is difficult for him to produce those witnesses. On this an objec1|ion was raised by counsel for the pbintiffs that the name of the^ witnesses does not find in the Jist. The Court below observed tho|t- the petitioner herein has already token three adjoumments for| date the defendant/petitione^ adducing evidence and before that herein never showed his intention to produce the^ witnesses ^nd the defendfl^t wanted that in addition to himself he woinfs to produce affidavits of two witnesses. The right of defenjdflnt to produce any other witness was closed oind 1+ie matt'er wbs fixed for cross-examination of defendant and his witnesses. On 25-6-2005 when thje impugned order was pas^d the i defendant and his two witne^ses were discharged after cross- exGmination. The petitioner ^ Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code d two witnesses, copy of the sa icrein moved an application under f Civil Procedure for production of ne was supplted to counsel for the s^) XI-HC-22 3TT^T^)T f^ft^3Ti^T ^TW^rfN' ^ IIMIIMIM . 3^T ^II^Krt^l, ^Tfi1M^I(o, Rdl<r1^< 311^1 45<tft .^:f.:?:^. 9.1^1. ^I^C-II $h*<ich ^ 200 fcl-bo^ ^n^T^Rn'^T^TiN' -^ plainTiffs and the same was for the ptaintiffs had a9ain cbi^Toi^'i ^i^ciT^'tel:^'<Ri^i< ^3Tf^T3TI^T objeGted by the plaintiffs. Counsel raised an objection and submitt-ed that the names of these w'^esses were not cited in the list by the petitioner and the Court permitl'ed the petitioner herein to produce only three witnes^s |including himself, and other request made by the petitioner had c^lready been re^cted by the Court* Therefore, the petitioner catjinot te permitt'ed to summon other one witness and the Court rej^cted the proyer. Shri Rajeev Shrivastav^x, teamed counsel for the petitioner herein submitted that only t|iree opportunities were granted to the petitioner whereas the|plaintiffs took five years time to complete their ©vidence.He ^urther submitted that one witness was pre^nt in the court on -fhat date cmd the petitioner wonted to examine two witnesses, bi| the trial Court arbitrarily. Having heard leamed perused the above orders. 3] t the said request was rejected by counsel for 1+ie petitioner. I have ;t is evident from the above orders that 1+»e two witnes^s to w^om the petitioner herein wanted to examine one witness was witnes^s were not listed present in the Court, but these witnesses and the order dated 23-6-2005 reveals that th^ petitioner herein made it clear before th®Court that he warjts to examine three |%srsons namely, the petitioner herein and tv^o other witnesses, and those were I: m^s— XI-HC-22 ^TT^T^T f^TT^W^T $b^ich^f^T €' Gowri 3:^^TRT^ra', ^Tfl^^Ko, ^tdl^y 3ll^l M5|ch . _ <^VP.2-3-c<of °) +11^^11 $b^ich ^^^^^'^^^^^ ^y^ 200 3TT^T?^TatK^riN Kwo ord^rs juri|sdicti ior(er w^re permitted to be examined. application for examination of Upon perusal of the Court in any way exercised th^ with it or exerdsed the irregularity, as initially pet(tior|i< two more witnes^s and thatl again he wanted t6 produce names of tho^ witnesses witnesses. Therefore, leamed| been able to make out a caseI order of trial Court in exercis^ of the Constitutionof India. Therefore, I do not finc( •the same is liable to be the admission stage itself. Consequently. M.(W.).P.^ stcyid disposed of. Thelreafter cbl^fd^i^ ^l^clT^tel:^'<^<^K ^3rf^T3TT^T BJreafter, the petitioner moved this more witnesses. it does not show that the trial i^ Jurisdiction which Js not vested i^diction ille9aljy or with material wanted to examine himself ond was permitted, apart' from that •fwo more witnes^s but even the not mentioned in the list of |coun^l for the petitioner has not |for interfering by this Court the of jurisdiction under Article 227 any substance in the petition and dismis^ed. it is accord^ly, dismissed, at '.^o.2320/05 and I.A.No.5542/05 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (<^^^)