IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (U/ Art. 227) No4f4%010 //V PETITIONER: Hanuman Prasad S/o Late Kedarmal (PLAINTIFF IN THE Agrawal, aged aboutqgg years, R/o Ld. TRIAL COURT) Ramsagarpara, Korba, Tahsil & District: Korba, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS RESPONDENTS: /0 1 . Shankarlal S / o Nanku Prasad (DEFENDANTS IN THE Agrahari (Gupta), aged about 42 years. Ld. TRIAL COURT) (702. Santosh Kumar S/o Nanku Prasad Agrahan‘ (Gupta), aged about 42 years. Both R/o Mission Road, Korba, Tahsil 85 Distn'ct: Korba, Chhattisgarh. Qkwd m3. Mangal"; @r/S/o Late Kedarmal Ar—Ageaw'gl} aged about 38 years, R/o Ramsagarpara, Korba, Tahsil & District: Korba, Chhattisgarh. 04. State of Chhattisgarh through: The Collector, mar, Chhattisgarh. RIT PETITION U/ART. 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. w T ‘. ’ W PETITIONER : Hanuman Prasad Versw RESPONDENTS : Shankarlal & others (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri MK. Baeg, Advocate for the petitionef. Writ Petition (227) No. 4443 of2010 Shri Abhijeet Sarkar, Advocate for respondent No. l & 2.- Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State; ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18.01.2011) Learned counse! appearing for the respondent No.l&2 does not ‘ want to me any reply in the case. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard iinaltyk By tiling this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for suitable direction in terms of writ of mandamus. Orders impugned dated 15.04.2010 and 12.05.2010 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Korba, in'MJC Case No. 02/09 perused; whereby the Civil Judge, Korba, has closed the right to adduee " evidence of the plaintin‘. Shri Baeg and Shri Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the parties are heard. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that” V although the petitioner has failed to examine his witnesses;if ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITION UNDE TI E 70F wNS 0 OF INDIA 5 ‘ opportunity is not provided to the plaintiff; irreparable loss would \ be caused to the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the ' petitioner and submits that court below has not committed any “ illegality warranting any interference in terms of issuance of any writ and also submits that considering the conduct of the petitioner any direction be given to the court below subject to the V, payment ofthe cost. Orders impugned perused.- Definitely the plaintinYpetitioner has } not taken proper precaution and care to prosecute its case but in ' the present ease the parties have not examined the witnesses: " I Considering the aforesaid facts this petition is allowed subjectito’ payment of cost of Rs. 3000/; to the respondents within 30 days , hom today. Accordingly, orders impugned dated 15.04.2010 and 12.05.2010 are hereby set aside. The court below shall provide the petitioner , two opportunities for hearing/adducing/examining his witnesses u“ and aiter providing reasonable opportunity of adducin'g evidence to the respondent, shall decide the case on‘its oWn merits. No order asto costs. Sdl- N.K.Agarwal ‘ Judge