‘y B1 \Mml A\ ; é ‘ I L L E 7% f g: Q\ “,3 #t 2r iwrW ) m THEHIGH coum OF JuméArU 'AT BI‘LAS‘PUR' ‘ ' WRIT PETITION (Artzzniwugwé OF 201‘0 , i PETITIONER "/: Mahesh Sharma, son of Shri Vishnu I f ‘ (DefendantNo.1) ‘ Prasad Sharm'I, aged 42 years, resident of Viilage Tekari, Wehs?! & Dist Raipur. ‘ Vs y, RESPONDENTS : / 1.Ram!al Sahtu, son of Shri' Jhaduram f Plalntlfl x Sahu, aged 73 years. resident of Viflage ‘ Tekari, Tehs i & District Raipur. Defendam No.2 ' / 2.State of C§hhattisgarh, through the f Collector, Ra’ipur, Distriot Raipurn K . I I I , ‘pETITION UNDER ARTICLE'227 OFITHéCONSTITUTION—OPINDIA _ I ., HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No 296/20 10 PETITIONER ' Mahesh Sh a Versus ’ g RESPONDENTS - ¥ Ramlal and another SB:-' HO’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J I PRESENT — r Shn Dmesh R K Tlwan, Advocate for the petmoner Shrl B P Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No 1 Shn Arvmd Dubey, Panel Lawyer, for the State ORAL ORDER (1352011) With the conseht of the parties, the matter is heard fmally. K Inétant petition calls 1n question the legality and propriety of jthe order dated 4—1-2010 passed by 7th Civil Judge mass — 2, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 62—A/2006 whereby and hereunder, defendant’s oral prayer for examining more witness was rejected. According to petitioner, although he started examining his witnesses in the year ‘ 2007 and has examined two Witnesses including Patwari B.R. Sahu, still other witnesses are necessary to be examined for just decision of the case. Hence he made an oral prayer for examination iv of {other Patwari to prove demarcation report which has been erroneously turned down by the trial Court. On the other hand, Shri B.P. Shanna, learned counsel for the respondents would submit, sufficient opportunity was given by the trial Court to the petitioner to examin witnesses. 'As per petitioner’s own choice, Patwari BR. Sahu was examined to prove demarcation report,‘ therefore, petitioner’s prayer for examining unnamed N w e patWari was only to delay the proceedings and the same has rightly been tumed doWn by the trial Court and the petition deserves to be dismissed. I haVe heard learned counsel for the parties and perused theimpugned order. exammmg his ' ' lndisputably the petitioner started witnesses in the year 2007. He also eiLammed patwan of his choice to prove demarcation report./ Therefore, rejection of oral prayer of the petitioner to examine unnamed patwari by the mal Court cannot be found fault w1th Therefore I do not find any illegality impugied order warranting interference of thls Court under Art1cle 227 of », the Constitution of India It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from v interfering with the order passed by the Court below except in such cases where perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, whiCh is not in the present case. Therefore, the petition being Without substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Qt ?x A? A Sd/ N'K' Agrawaj Judge . ,._ r,