IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH // y, WRIT PETITION No. 44457 OF 2005 /, PETITIONER Parmeshwar S/o LatePancham Gond Mww ' by caste Gond, aged about 46 years, occupation agriculturist, resident of \ ‘\ a.» a y’ \ i.- 3" Village IGTalpodi Tahsil Lundra, o' §¢ or...‘ District Surguja (CG). ”2x " VERSUS 0 1. ’I‘rilochan S/o Late Mittu Gond, aged 60 years. g . ‘V ~\ {e I Q M ’ /2. Hira Sai S/o Late M1ttu Gond, aged about 45 years. g. Teju S/o Lallan Gond, aged about “30 year. All are agriculturist and resident of Khalpodi, Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja (CG). 4. Bundo D/o Lallan Gond, aged f about 28 years, occupation agriculturist, resident of Village Dhamdhapur, Tahsil Rajpur, District Surguja (CG). 5. Majhino D/o Lallan Gond, aged about 25 years, occupation agn’cultun‘st, resident of village Karra, Mahuwapara, Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja (CG). /6. State of Chhattisgarh, through y CollectOr Surguja (CG). MM, Rgiger, Ta£eil>m r " $saa’et m‘ar (%»}.‘ yumog ' ’i ,/ / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR WRITS ORDER OR ORDERS DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE @W U; - Xl-HC-78 ; WWWW mmm$wwil¢f W200 amt rm; (wig—Q) mmqgwgg . , mmma'mm , aiWanéet 16.9.2005 Shri Sunil Triapfhii courisel for fhe yefifioner. The pe'rifianer'has preferred mis pefjjéon under Arfide 226/227 ‘of The Cansfifufion of India quesfioning +he ieggh’i’y, propriefy and cohrecfness bf fhe order daTed 12.5.2005 (Aqnexure P-ll) passed by !ear-ned 72“ Civi Judge. Class-IL Ambikapur in Civil Sui? No.36A/05 whereby iearhed Civil Judge has rejec‘red fhe-appiicafion bf fhe pefifianer fiied under Sad-ion 1 of ihe C?C. I have heard ieurned courage! for- ‘l'he pefifioner and perused fhe’ impugned orderi Perusai of impugned order- shows ihai' respandem Nos2, 4 & 5 moved fhe applicaiien and dffidavi‘i-s befc re fher cow-1' beiow skiing ihai- originai wriffen sfafemen‘r é: Vakaiafnama does no? bear Their fhumb imprssion. Thereafi’er, fhey have filed eno‘i‘h r affi&avi+ sfafing ‘l'hni' original wri-H'en sfafemen'i' bears fheir Thumb i pression, whereas, i’he uffidavh‘s and applica‘rian filed by fhem laferen w re inciarrect as fhe plain‘fiff has obfined ‘i'heir 'i'humb impression keeping ‘rh m in dark and faking advarri‘age o feir iiiiferacy. ‘The Trial courf rejecfe fhe appiica‘iion fiied by The pefiioner herein on 'ihe ground fha‘l defend ni' Nos.2, 4 & 5 have admif'ied l-hai *l'he euriier Vakaidtnama and wri‘lie'n s'l' emenf bears ‘lheir ihumb impression . Ceuneel for +he pe‘l'i'iioner ubmi‘ie iha‘i‘ respondeni' Nos‘Z. 4 &5 re i inking samersauif and ihey are c enging iheir sfand, ‘l'herefare, le friai cour'r eugh'r To have conducted the nquiry and Taken aciiengg‘ainsi Them. A mf' , 15 l e a f h i a h XI-HC-78 (W mm‘m ............................ ‘..i ..... mzoo memmim) anésmr Em? amanéstmy mmmmw ~ - mm'#ww Z:— $Wané21 In reply To ‘l'he applica‘i‘ion f ied by fhe pe‘rifioner under Secfion 151 of fhe CPC, fhe respondent N052, 4 _ 5 have sfafed 1‘ha‘r fhe pefifioner herein 6b‘l'a8ned fheir fhumb’ impression o the second affidavifs keeping fhem in dark ‘ and +aking advanfage cf their iHHer y. Now the. question remains fhaf in order- fo ascenfain whefher i'he' rplainTi‘ff/peTiTianer herein abTained The Thumb impression of respondenT Nos.2. 431$ 5 nf'l‘er' keeping fhem in dark r not is a quesfion of fad which requires enqmr‘y. Counsei for fhe pefifioner‘ mifs +ha+ since fhis a serious ma‘Her- and fhe respondem‘s are. changing fh ir' sfand in a judicial praceedings, in such eircumsfances, fhe Triai €our'i‘ cu f to have conducted +he enquiry and pass fhe appropria‘ie order. if is True Thai in a judiciai ‘ roce‘eding filing of affidavit and Thereaffer‘ fiiing an affidavit coni-rover-fing he eariienaffidavi‘i' is a serious main-er. Learned Trial court is required asoeriain fhe faci' whei‘her The second 'af’fidavi'i' filed by respondenT Nae .4 & ’5 wa§ in facT prepared by The plainTiff and he obtained The Thumb impres ian of The respondenfs keeping Them in dark and Taking advantage of Their ili acy. AfTer conduci'ing enquiry, The Triai ceurT shouid pass approprinTe ord r in accendnnce wiTh law aT The Time of Tinai disposal of The suiT. i ConsequenTly, M.(W.)P. No 3581/05 and I.A. No 7956JO5 also sTand disposed of. ‘ Sd/— ‘ L.C.BHADCO Judge , The peTiTion sTands dispased of. WiTh The direcTion aforesa ‘ b . i r