-1- C.M.P. No. 1004 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1004 of 2023 1. General Manager, TISCO, West Bokaro Colliery, Ghatotand, M/s Tata Steel Ltd., West Bokaro Division, P.O. West Bokaro, Ghatotand, P.S. Mandu, District- Ramgarh 2. Chief Manager, Land and Raw Material TISCO, West Bokaro Colliery, Ghatotand, M/s Tata Steel Ltd., West Bokaro Division, P.O. West Bokaro, Ghatotand, P.S. Mandu, District- Ramgarh 3. Manager, Legal Land and Lease TISCO, West Bokaro Division, Tata Steel Ltd., Ghatotand, M/s Tata Steel Ltd., West Bokaro Division, P.O. West Bokaro, Ghatotand, P.S. Mandu, District- Ramgarh Petitioners are represented through its duly authorized signatory namely, Sri Anurag Dixit (aged about 52 years), S/o Sri Atma Nand Dixit, posted as General Manager, Tata Steel Ltd., West Bokaro Division, Ghatotand, P.O. West Bokaro, P.S. Mandu, District- Ramgarh … Petitioners -Versus- 1. State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh 2. Baleshwar Mahto, Son of Late Pushu Mahto, resident of Village Karma, P.O. Karma, P.S. Mandu, District- Ramgarh 3. Sohari Devi, D/o Late Pushu Mahto, W/o Mahabir Mahto, resident of Village Karma, P.O. Karma, P.S. Mandu, District- Ramgarh … Opposite Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate Mr. Prashant Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For the State : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasen, A.C. to A.A.G.-IA For O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate ----- 05/24.03.2025 Heard Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasen, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the prayer is made for setting aside the order dated 22.05.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-V, Ramgarh in Original Suit No.88/2019, whereby, time petition filed by the petitioners for cross-examination of P.W.1 has been rejected. -2- C.M.P. No. 1004 of 2023 3. Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that plaintiffs-opposite party nos. 2 and 3 instituted Original Suit No.88 of 2019 before the learned Court praying therein that the raiyati right and title of the plaintiffs upon the suit land given in Schedule-B to the plaint be declared and further prayer was made for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to get payment of compensation and employment for the same account of being dispossessed from the suit lands to the plaintiffs by the petitioners-defendant nos. 2 to 4. He submits that defendant nos. 2 to 4 are M/s Tata Steel Limited and the stand has been taken by defendant nos. 2 to 4 that the said land is Gair Mazarua land and Jungle Jhari, however, in the plaint the plaintiffs have taken stand that the land in question is converted into Korkar. He further submits that the State Government, who is defendant no.1 has cross-examined P.W.1, however, defendant nos. 2 to 4 have filed petition to provide one opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1, which has been rejected by the learned Court on the ground that it is not maintainable. He refers to Order XVII Rule 1 of the CPC and submits that on cogent reasons three adjournments can be granted, however, the learned Court has wrongly held that it is not maintainable. 4. Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasen, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that from the impugned order, it transpires that no adjournment has been provided to defendant nos. 2 to 4 and on the first application itself, the said petition has been rejected. 5. Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 opposed the prayer and submits that the delay attitude has been adopted by the petitioners herein and in view of that the learned Court has -3- C.M.P. No. 1004 of 2023 rightly passed the said order. 6. From the impugned order, it transpires that P.W.1 has been cross- examined by defendant no.1, who is the State of Jharkhand and the petition has been filed for cross-examination of P.W.1 by the petitioners-defendant nos. 2 to 4, which has been rejected by the learned Court by saying that it is not maintainable. 7. The procedure for adjournment has been prescribed under Order XVII Rule 1 of the CPC. On a cogent reason, the matter can be adjourned for at least 3 times. From the impugned order, it does not transpire that at any earlier point of time, defendant nos. 2 to 4 have taken any adjournment. The CPC is meant for doing the justice and for the ends of justice, the Court finds that the said order is not in accordance with law and, as such, the order dated 22.05.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-V, Ramgarh in Original Suit No.88/2019 is, hereby, set aside. 8. The learned Court will call P.W.1 for cross-examination on behalf of defendant nos. 2 to 4 and this exercise will be completed within two to three short dates, fixed by the learned Court. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/