1 C.M.P. No. 679 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- C.M.P. No. 679 of 2024 ---- Bishnupriya Mandal aged about 69 years wife of Mukund Murari Mandal and D/o late Gurupada Faujdar, R/o Village Bonkati PO and PS Kundahit, District Jamtara …… …. … Petitioner(s) -- Versus -- Chabi Faujdar widow of late Chakradhar Faujdar and Others …… …. …Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Prasad Joshi, Advocate For the O.P.Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. N.P. Choudhary, Advocate ---- 4/10.03.2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the O.P.Nos. 1 to 5. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-1 Jamtara in Original Suit No.32 of 2020 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC has been rejected by the learned court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Original Suit No.32 of 2020 was instituted by the petitioner/ plaintiff for preliminary decree declaring plaintiff 1/4th share in the A and B Schedule Suit property and ½ share in C Schedule property, a final decree as per preliminary decree and delivery of separate possession to the plaintiff /petitioner in respect of land allotted to her in final decree. He submits that the suit has proceeded and the defendants have appeared and filed their written statement. He submits that the petitioner/plaintiff was examined, however, rest of the two plaintiff witnesses named in the list have not been examined as they were not ready to 2 C.M.P. No. 679 of 2024 come to the court. He submits in view of that the petition under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC was filed to call three witnesses which has been rejected by the learned court on the ground that it is not disclosed in the petition that they were knowing the facts of the case. He submits that bonafidely this has occurred and the statement in the application is there. 4. Learned counsel for the Opp. parties opposed the prayer and submits that belatedly the said petition and under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC the learned court has rightly passed the order. 5. The application filed under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC is annexed with the petition wherein at para-4 it is clearly stated that the persons whom the plaintiff wants to examine are acquainted with the facts of this case and the reason has been assigned therein that two witnesses have refused to come to the witness- box. Thus, it appears that the reasons have been disclosed in the petition and the learned court has dismissed the said petition on the ground that it is not stated that new witnesses sought to be examined are knowing the facts of the case. 6. In the interest of justice and outcome of the suit after providing all the opportunity to all the sides order dated 12.02.2024 is set aside and the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC dated 08.1.2024 is hereby allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/- to the defendants. 7. The petitioner/plaintiff will not take unnecessary adjournments in the suit. 8. This petition is allowed in the above terms and disposed of. 9. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/