HIGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (2271 N0. 5050 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF _ INDIA. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Mr. RP. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, RL. for the State/respondents No. 4 to 6. Respondents No. 1, 2 8s 3 not noticed. omur ORDER (passed on 01/09/2011) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ‘ petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 23/7/2011 passed by Civil Judge, Class—2, Pithoura, » f 1) w PETITIONERS 1. Nn'praj, S/o Sakirtan Rant, Defendants about 32 years, R/o Village Salhetami, 2. Lingraj, S/o Sakirtau Rant, aged about 3O yeals, R/o Village Salhctalai, Kumraj, S/o Sakirtan Raut, aged about 27 years, R/o Village Salhetami, All axe Revenue Circle Sankra, Tahsil Pithoura, Disnict Mahasamund (C.G.). VERSUS fly RESPONDENTS 1. Saxaswati, Wd/o Sonu, Caste Plaintm‘ Raut, aged about 68 years, R/o Village Baamdadeeh, Revenue Cimle Sankra, Tahsil Pithoura, District Mahasamund, (C.G.). W) 2. Panchram, S/o Tikaxam Patel, aged about 21 years, Caste Aghan'ya, R/o Village Bamndadeeh, 3. Lalit, S/o Tikaram Patel, aged about 25 years, Caste Aghariya, R/ o Village Baamdadeeh, Respondent No. 2 86 3 both are R/o Revenue Cimle Sankm, Tahsil Pithoura, District Mahasamund (C.G.). 4. District Collector, Mahasamund (C.G.). 5. Tahsildar, Pithoura, District Mahasamund (C.G.). 6. Sub-Divisional O$cer, Pithoura, District Mahasamund (C.G.). “5L District Mahasamund (C.G.) in civil suit No. 3—A/2010 whereby power of attorney dated 28/6/ 2011 executed by the plainti§s in favour of one power of attorney holder has been taken on mcord by allowing the application tiled under Order 7 rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ( in short ‘the Code’). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that While wkiug such document on record Comt below has also taken on record the evidence on affidavit of such power of attorney holder Gangadhar thereby committed an illegality. Although, aforesaid facts does not reflects in the order impugned. Court below has rightly allowed the application tiled under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code even otherwise if it is presumed that evidence of alleged power of attorney holder Gangadhar on ajiidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code has been taken on record then even Court below has not committed any illegality. Still case is pending for plaintids evidence and plaintiffs is at liberty to examine the wimesses in accordance with law. There is no such time limit for nling evidence on oath under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of any witness whom party proposed to examination, I do not hnd any substance in the petition. Consequently, petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. LA. No. 01 stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/— T.P. Sharma Judge