IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ PetiJrion (Art227) No. €769 of 2009 $w§$ QTwm PETITIONER/: Vimal Bargah, S/o La’re Kshem Bhadra Singh before fhe frial Cour?) (Defendan’r No.1 Bargah, Aged abouf 58 year‘s, Casfe Vadav, R/o Ward No.7, Pandaria, Police Station & Tahsil Pandaria District Kabir‘dhum (C.G.) — Versus — RESPONDENTs/z (Plainfiff before ‘rhe Trial Cour?) Mahendr‘a Kumar Bargah, 5/0 La‘re Kshem Bhadra Singh Bargah, Aged about 45 year's, R/o Ward No.2, Near Old Bus Sfand, Mungeli, Disfricf Bilaspur (6.5.) efendan‘rs No.2 To 8 2. Meera Devi Bargah, before The Trial Cour‘r) Widow of Lafe Kshem Bhadra Singh Bargah, Age'd abou’r 74 years, R/o Ward No.2, Near Old Bus Stand, Mungeii, Distric’r Bilaspur (C.G.) Indrani Devi, W/o Indulal Yadav Aged abouf 54 years, R/o Viilage Teemarlaga, Posf Teemar-laga, Tahsil Sarangarh, Dis‘rrict Raigarh (C.G.) Nandrani, W/o Vashoda Nandan Vadav, Aged abouf 50 years, , Cas’re Yodav, R/o Near Mahamaya Temple, Rafanpur, Tahsil KoTa, Disfricf Bilaspur (C.G.) / (D © 2;; Kum. Varsha Yadav, D/o Ramesh Kumar Yadav, Aged abouf 17 year's. Kum. Rim Yadav, D/o Ramesh Kumar Yadav, Aged abou‘r 14 year‘s. Kum. Neha Yadav, D/o Ramesh Kumar Yadav, Aged about 1O years, Responden’rs No.5 1‘0 7 are minors through Their legal guardian Fafher Ramesh Kumar, aged abou‘r 47 years, R/o Village & Karumaha, Tahsil Akalfara, Districf Janjgir— Champa (C.G.) S’rafe of Chha’rTiSgarh, Through The Collecfor, Kawardha, Disiric’r Kabirdham (6.6. ) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUHON OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT/WRITS DIRECTIONS ‘El'C. IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARI AND/OR ANV OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OF LIKE NATURE IHGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: \ Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra VVrit Petition 1227! N0. 969/2009 PETITIONER : Vimal Bargah Versus RESPONDENTS Mahendra Kumar Bargah and others Aggearance: Shri Malay Shlivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Miss. Sangeeta Mishra, PL for the State/respondent No.8. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE N CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (25. 1 1 .2010) The trial court has rejected the application filed by defendant No.1 in the suit,under Order 26 Rule I of CPC for examination of Meera Bai and Indrani Devi on commission. (2) From the impugned order, it would appear that the said application was hled on the submission that Meera Bai is a aged and infirm lady residing with 'Smt. Indrani Devi at Sarangarh, therefore sary t5 he recorded on commission and since Indrani Devi is also residing with Meera Bai at Sarangarh, can also be examined by the Commissioner. her examination is nec/es 1 said Meera Bai, respondent No.2 has died during pendency of the writ petition. (4) Proceedings of tho suit have been stayed by this court vide order dated 16/02/2009. On the date of filing of suit in 2007 Indrani Devi has been shown to be 54 years of age. (5) Learned counsel for the petitioner could not make any statement about the condition of Indrani Devi so as to necessitate her examination on commission. (6) In the facts and circumstances of the case and more particulary in view of death of Meera Bai, this petition is disposed of with obseivation that ifthe petitioner still feels that examination of Indrani Devi is required to be conducted on commission, he may move fresh application under Order 26 Rule l of CPC disclosing the reasons for i examination of Indrani Devi on commission. If such an application is filed, learned trial court shall consider the same in accordance with law and on its own merit. Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge l l l l / l ' 5di- l l