c^^rs IN TBOE fflGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR.'C.G. W.P.no. 43^ /2004 PETITIONER: (Plaintiff) 5>-^:..- ..y^'^'L ^y'. ^^ ^^ ^ ^' RESPONDENTS (Defeadants) vy' Singhania Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., (a company regd. under The Companies Act, 1956), through director Subodh Singhania, office at Amanaka, G.E.Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. VE RS U S. ^l. Horilal Tamarkar, s/o Jhumaklal Tamarkar, r/o Puram Basati, Raipur, C.G. (^2. Satish Kumar Tiwari s/o Ramesh Kumar Tiwari, r/o Baaia para, Purani Basti, Raipur,C.G. ^3. Smt. Jyoti Agarwal w/o Sanjay Agarwal, r/o Choube colony, Raipur,C.G. State of Chhattisgarh, tfarough Collector, Raipw,C.G. WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIN OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPBMJE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/ CERTIORARAI/ PROHIBITION OR DIRECTIVE /ORDERS IN THE LIJ^^ATURE ETC. .-^1 •^y^ '.\\ ^q-T XI-HC-22 3:TT^T^T f^TW3Tr^T Sh^(ch^rfN' 3^T ^l^ld^, ^Tf1<M^(o, Rldiy^< 311^^1 45<ch ^l*«<1l^hNT^ 200<^- 3n^T5^Tm^r 4.3.2005 Shri Bhisma Kingar, Npne appears on Affidavit of one Subl regarding service on service on the advocatels appearing before the courj that respondent No, 1 to service. Heard Shri Kingar 01 The petitioner has Article 226/227 of the aggrieved by order dated 3rd Additional District application filed by the p< Rule 1 read with Section Brief facts leading t< that the petitioner herein respondents to declare 28.6.2002 by dcfendant N|< as null and void and sain^ to declare that based on respect of the land admeasuring 0.311 hecta| of the plaintiff, as a behlalf resbondent chi^f<n^ri ^i^QiT^tec^'<Ri^i< ^3Tf^T3TI^T |counsel for the petitioner. of respondent No, 1 to 3, ^)dh Singhania has been filed No, 1 personally and of respondent Nos.2 & 3 below, Therefore, it is treated 3 are not present inspite of behalf of tlie petitioner. jpreferred this petition under Constitution of India being 120.10.2004 passed by learned [Judge, Raipur whereby the ttitioner herein under Order 16 51 of CPC has been rejected, filing of this writ petition are |ias filed a civil suit against the the sale deed executed oai |o. 1 in favour ofdefendant No.3 is not binding on the plaintiff; three sale deeds executed in bearing Khasra Np. 651/4 :e by defendant No.2 in favour Ipower of attorney holder of tlhe XI-HC-22 3^T ^I^Id^, ^Tfl<141<o, f^cni^^i ^l q^^> W^I^TT 9rRT^ ^ -----,.- --, j ^ f^re^ 3TI^T^)T Rrli<=h.3TT^T $h^icb^f?cT ^i^i^dWdl^r -s- CM^fd41Tl ^lHcrlT^f^trf^^K ^^rf^T3TT^T defendant No,l, the plaint and is in possession periaanent injunction be ^ that defendants or their with the possession of th< Defendants have issues were framed and for evidence of thc plaint^ Perusal of the ixiipuj date of framing of issues he wants to produce threj, list of witnesses was thereafter for adducing ev| dates i.e. 20.4.2004, 11.10.2004 when the P4 learned counsel for the p[: suniiaoning of the witH^ mistake list ofwitnesses to whom petitioner governinent servants bejj office, State Bank of Indi4 Raipur therefore, it has them. Accordingly, it suxniHioned through the taken on record, Howev4: tliff is the owner of the said land bf the same and further a jranted ia favour of the plaintiff l|egal heirs should not interfere plaintiff. lled their written statexnent, t|iereafter, the niatter was fixed Iff. ifened order reveals that on the [the plaintiff laade it clear that ^witnes^ses oaly^ therefore, no by the petitioner and W81S [idence the petitioiier took three ^2.4.2004 & 20.6.2004. Oa isiding Officer was on leave, laintiff filed an applicatioii for ^sses on the ground that by WQ.3 not filed and the witnesses anted to examifiie are the ing officials of Sub-registrar and Police Statioxi, Oole Bazar, becoxne neeessary to suxamon requested that they may be ^ourt and list of witnesses be r, learned trial Court rejected XI-HC-22 3^T ^l^M^, ^TH<l4l(o, f^diyy< 3TT^I q^^l ^^CII »)^1<^ ^...^...^^^^ 200 ^ 3TI^T^T ^TT^^Tr^T ^^I<=h^f?cT 3:n^T^<TT^T^f?cT _- the prayer and held that mistake the list of wi1 application cannot be Shri Kingar, counsel| when the petitioner was witnesses, on that date position, he thought that) give their evidence, that i$ filed, but later on whes| Governxnent servants, the^ evidence unless they are In the circuiastances, u] petitioner had iiot furni| learned trial court ought t< suixinion those witnesses of witaesses on record, H| this stage he does not p| order to prove his case he| of only three witnesses witness along with record prove that the petitioner defendant Nos, 1 & 2 and that cheque and lastly th|( Oole Bazar, Raipur to executed by the defendani <=hi<4?d41-i ^j^<viT^feI^'<Ri^i< ^3T^T3:TT^T ^aerely by mentioning that by |:nesses was not filed, the allotyed. \ |for the petitioner argued that required to file the list of [without realizixig the factiial the witnesses will come and why list of witnesses wa^ not he approached them being denied to come and give their ^umxnoned through the Court. lider the bona fide belief the ilshed the list and therefore^ have allowed the petitioner to |hrough Court after takixig list furtherSubmits that xiow at :ess for six witnesses and in wants to adduce the evidence najmely the plaintiff hiniself, one from the State Bank of India to lad issued cheque in favour of Ipayment was made to them by official of the police station prove the acknowledgement 1s which was submitted by him XI-HC-22 ^TT^T^T f^t^3TI^T ^Tf^^rf?^T ^^ ^NKrt^, ^^^(o, fadl^^i ^T^SICft \ ^; *<i^C^T$h^|ch ..W..;P..:^S^ ,^ 3TT^T5^TW:^f?cT ^ petitiotae ats tHe to the police along witl|i submits that if these wi|l exaniined then the In this connection of Rule 16 of the Code of before such date as ihe than fifteen days after settled^ the parties are witnesses whom they ^) evidence or to produce io such persons for their (3) of this Rule 1 further| for reasons to be recorde^, by summoning through other ihan those whose to insub-rule (1), ifsuch the omission to mention i said list." Sub-rule 1(A) f^ provisions of sub'rule (3)^ may, without applying f(\} any ivitness to give evide]i In view of the abovl accepting the list even date of fraining of the 4 shows the sufficient cau) chNfci^l-i ^i^^iT^:te^Et<f^<-<i< ^3ri^R'3TT^T the coinplaint, He further lltnesses are iiot allowed to be ?r^s case fail for no reason, per provisions of sub-rule (1) the Civil Procedure, 1908 aon or dfiurt may appoint^ and not later date on which the issues arc ^equired to furnish the list of jrojpose (o call either to give and obtain summonses [atiendance in Court\ Sub-rule envisages that <sthe Court may, 4, permit a party to call^ whether or otherwise, any witness^ appear in the list referred ^arty shows sufficient cause for \he name of such witness in the ^irther envisages that ttsubject to of rule l^ any party 1o the sutt |r summons under rule 1, bring ^ice or i^ produce documents.9 provisions there is 110 bar in passing of 15 days from the |ssues provided that the party ^e for not filing the list i3i time Ck>ur< ntimes alfter XI-HC-22 CT^T^T R[;TW3T[^T T^^rf?cT $»)^|ch^[ 3^T ^i^icn^, ^Tf1<l^<o, fc|dl^y< 3T^?T q^^> ^^<ir»>^icb^.sa ^.77:....'.../..—.W.J f^s 200^-. and the court is entitledl witnesses in the cases w] the explanation offered b; am fortified by the reported in AIR 1987 to allow the filing of list of ^ere the court is satisfied with the party and for this view, I judjgment of Orrisa High Court 179 & AIR 1995 SC 1984. OrrBsa witne^ses In the present case,| application that the by the plaintiff in order State Bank of Iiidia &, Polp and further they are but being the governm< records uiiless they are they are not able to come| evidence, Therefore, the herein appears to be bojaa interest of Justice the tri|al the application filed by tl In the result, the allowed, impugned ordejr directed to allow the petj witness from State Bankl Raipur and one witness Bazar, Raipur and for issued to both the witnet ch(^?d^1T1 HJ^QlT^fec^'<[^«« ^3:rf^T3TT^?T as has beeii mentioaed in the which were to be examined 1:0 prove his case are froxa the ice Station, Gole Bazar, Raipur req^iired to bring the documents, |nt servants and government Isummpaed through the Court |before the court and give their •^^^^-^^- jground ^§^ ®5bythe petitioner fide & genuine and in the court ought to have allowed LC petitioner herein. petition of the petitioner is is quashed, trial eourt is tioner to examine himself, one of India, Jai Stambh Chowk, froia the Police Station, Gole ^roducing them, summons be Lses and Dastl be given to the XI-HC-22 3^T^)T f^Tf^3n^T ^RT^^rfN' $hHI<=h <g^^ We^r 75T "4NI<?1<1, «>Tl1^<IC, fc)dl^^< 3TT^?T M5(Ch ^® *1 I^CTT ^RT^,.sr^ ^P5^' 200 <^- 3T[^T!^<IT^K^rf?cT —6 petitioiier herein to brin| documents. Since the res|i presence in spite of servi^e to cost, Consequently, M, No. 8833/04 also stand Certified copy as pe| .(|W.)P. No.4720/04 d|isposed of. _ ^ ;lr rules. °hi^?<n41^ ^j^^T^tel^t<Ri^i< ^3:rf^T3TT^T those witnesses and produce pondents have not put in their ^ therefore there is no order as I.A. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ('^y^r)