PETiTIONERS PLAINTIFFS 1. 2. 3-A 3-C 3-D 3-E VERSUS 2. PriSinker Diwakar) (C) No.1793 of 2007 Vishnu Prasad, son of Shri Dwarika Prasad, caste Agrawat, aged about 70 years, presentiy residing at Tahsil and District Kawardha, CG. Ramabai D/o Shri Dwarika Prasad Caste Agrawal, aged about 68 years, Agricultajrist, Madai, Presentiy residing at Madaii, Tahsil Masturi, Disfrict BiSaspur, CG. Godavari Bai, aged about 50 years, wife of shri Shyamanand ^rawal, resident of Sindhi Coiony, Champa, CG. Gomti Bai, aged about 42 years, wife of Shri Chandrika Prasad, Resident of Jonk Nadi Sankra, District Mahasamund, CG. Smt. Maiti, aged about SSyears, widow of late Shri Khemchand Agrawal, Resident of Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa, CG. Taluni Bai, aged about 32 years, wife of Shri Satyaprakash Agrawal, Resident of Purani Basti, Raipur, CG. Ramkishore Agrawal, aged about 44 years, sonof iate Shri Madho Prasad, Resident of village Akaitara, Tahsil and District Janjgir-Champa, CG. Ratnesh son of Shri Shivshankar aged about 25 years, resident of Madai, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, CG. State of Chhattisgarh through the Coliector, Bilaspur, CG. h i"l;')l't- v{•" 2-- Mr. Pawan Kesharwani counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Gulati counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. Avinash K. Mishra PL for the respondent No.2. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF tNDIA (29.04.2009) With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is Chailenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 21.12.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge Class li Bilaspur, in civil suit No. 9-A/2006 whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected and it has been ordered that the medicai certificate filed along with the appiication cannot be taken on record because the same should have been fiied at the time of fiiing of suit. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Counsel for the petitioners submits that no harm would be caused to the defendants if the said document is taken on record because ultimately the piaintiffs have to prove their case based on their pleadings and the document is required to be exhibited. He submits that frie evidence of the parties has not started as yet and on this count also the document can be taken on record. On the other hand counse! for the respondent No.lsubmits that the plaintiffs should have been vigiiant while fiiing the suit and the .*^'s%^^._. -3- document which is sought to be filed by the plaintiffs does not even bear the date. He submits that the Court below is fuily justified in rejecting the application fiied under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Counsel for the respondent No.2/State also supports the impugned order. After hearing counsel for the parties this Court is of the considered opinion ttiat no harm is likely to be caused to the defendants if the medicai certificate filed by the plaintiffs is permitted to be taken on record as the evidence has not yet started. Both the parties shall be at tiberty to give their evidence in respect of the said document. Even otherwise, the suit was filed on 15.3.2003 and stay is operating since 26.4.2007. Accordingly, the petition succeeds. Document filed by the plaintiffe is permitted to be taken on record. As the suit is pending since 2003, trial Court is directed to dispose of the same as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both the parties agree to appear before the Court below on 1 1.5.2009. Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge l'•r