Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Sangeeta vs Balwant Dewangan on 10 April, 2017

Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                                                        NAFR
           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                  WP (227) No.247 of 2017
Smt.Sangeeta, wife of Shri Balwant Dewangan (present wife Dinesh
Sahu), aged about 32 years, resident of village Ghursena, Post
Ghursena, Tahsil Nawagarh, Civil and Revenue District Durg (Now
Bemetara) (CG)
                                                    ---Petitioner
                                  Versus
  1. Balwant Dewangan, son of Gandhuram Dewangan, aged about 43
     years, resident of Deendayal Upadhyay Ward, Bhatapara, Tahsil
     Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (CG)
  2. Collector Baloda-Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (CG)
  3. Additional   District   Judge,   Bhatapara,   District    Baloda   Bazar-
     Bhatapara (CG)
                                                          ---Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr.A.P.Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr.Aditya Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 10/04/2017

1. The trial Court by its order dated 15.2.2017 closed the opportunity of the petitioner/defendant to lead the evidence as the petitioner failed to produce his witnesses before it.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will produce his witnesses on 17.4.2017.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is dispose off with the following directions:-

(i) The petitioner/defendant will produce his all witnesses on 17.4.2017 i.e. the next date fixed by the trial Court.

(ii) He will pay cost of Rs.5000/- to the plaintiff on 17.4.2017.

(iii) If the petitioner is not complied with the oder, he will not be entitled for any opportunity to lead the evidence.

(iv) No further adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner/defendant.

(v) The plaintiff is at liberty to move an application for modification of the order.

04. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE B/-