r" IKNUF,") IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION f227) NO.ll ©teOF 2009 (S.B.} PETITIONER : DEFENDANTNO.l Dhandas, aged about 45years S/o Ramdeen Das/Caste Manikpuri, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Rogda, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1-A. Pancham Das S/o Umend Das PLAINTIFFS 1-B. Kunwar Das S/o Umend Das ^ ir ^ ^'. ^w .^ .^•K-""" ^^^/ ->;-t%' ^''.y^v~ ^•',<$•'" ,/ '•^",^ ^^ 1-C. Kartik Das S/o Umend Das 1-D. Ram Das S/o Umend Das 1-E. Bhagmati D/o Umend Das 1-F. Bhagwantin D/o Umend Das 1-G. Bajarhin D/o Umend Das 1-H. Kunwariya D/o Umend Das 2. Mankunwar, aged about 60 years D/o Budhan Das; 3. Sukrit Das, aged about 35 years S/o Mohan Das; 4. Sukhsagar Das, aged about 30 years S/o Mohan Das; ..-,^;._. Sukhin Bai, aged about 70years widow of Mohan Das; All Caste Manikpuri, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Rogda, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Ch^^^^'^^ f The State of Madhya Pp^desh, Through: the Collector, DistrictJanjgir-Champa. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA DEFENDANT N0.2 y v f^^' WITW^T^^te ^^ ^MRT^, ^S^PT^, fN^rray ..WS.1.. ^^^..y.^..^^..-..^......-:.^...^^...^^^^ a^T'q^?('!^f3^^) I^WC'^lfN^^T S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justicej^.i 06.08.2009 Shri Shailendra Dubey, Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, No. 6. Heard on admission. ^dvocates for the petitioner. Ifanei Lawyer for State/respondent The instant petition is 28.07.2009, passed by iilrd Ci^il in Civii suit No. 387-A-B/05, vvh^ has rejected the appiication fie|i under Order 8 Ruie 1 (3) of CPf The brief facts of the c4 written statement on 15.12.011 documents which wasgrantedj 27.06.02, the petitioner did not fixed for evidence and when evidence, the instant petition flie documents on such belatedl The trial court, on close the record, and submissions ol has faiied to assign reasons of 1 'W^I^T 'HP^f °^'fe1^ '^^K ^'^tRR^n^i Aaarwal directed against the order dated t/il Judge, Ciass 1, Janjgir Champa, ireby and whereunder the trial court Id by the petitioner/defendant No. 1 c^se are that, the petitioner fiied his and sought time for fiiing certain by the trial court and thereafter on flle any document and the case was ^he case was fixed for petitioner's h^s been flled seeking permission to jstage. ^crutiny of the rnaterial avaiiable on the parties, held that the petltioner peiay in fiiing the said documents. LJ ^Rt^N ?^T4 ^iT^i^^3H^^T^—^S/95—11/2008—1,00,000. ^i^i^rlq^ ^^T^lt¥l<i^W 7^; ^' Sahul -3-^ ^TFn^PT, •^N1^, t^IT^: w^^t'r w^i'^ SH^ItR^Crt^^) After hearing the coun^< the order impugned, 1 do n^ jurisdictional error in the order extraordinary jurisdiction of t| constitution oflndia. el for petitioner, and after perusing find any illegality, irregularity or )assed the trial court so as to invoke lis court under Articie 227 of the it is well settled prinjcipl exercise of its supervisory jL|r Constitution of india, shouldj the order passed by the Ccjuri: where perversity, illegality, itt- writ large on the face of the case. The petition deserves tc No order asto costs. ^refe^•w^^'fe^"^^ ^3?fCT 311^1 le of law that this Court, in risdiction under Article 227 of the I refra.in itself from interfering with beiow, except in such cases regularity or jurisdictional error is jecord, which is not in the present be and is accordingly dismisse^. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^^j€^-^U ^fH^T<^R[^^—FS/95—11 /20CS—1,00,000. -L