,V ‘ a “A @ IN THE HIGH wURT OF wHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P. No. ]03€ i2004/ PETITIONER : Smt. Mangali widow of Roopsai (daughter PLAINTIFF of late Bhikhu), aged about 65 year R/o. village Amarpur. P.S. & Tah. Baikunthpur, Distt.(Surguja) Koria (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Smt. Parwati wife of Shivbalak DEFENDANTS (D/o late Bhikhu), aged 5B years, R/o. Vill. Mansukh, Tah. Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria (Surguja) (c.G.). 2. Smt° $onkunwar W/o. Pransai (D/o. late Bhikhu). aged about 55 years, R/o. Chowki Daphai, 'Koria colliery, Tah. Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria (Surguja) (C.G.). Bhaiya La]. s/o Mohar Sai, aged 45 years. Babu Lal S/o Mohar Sai, aged abOut 35 years, Both are resident of villa. Amarpur Tah. Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria (C.G.). ggTITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 9F mNSTITUTION OF XNDIA. Ma HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR *N— S.B. HON’BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA J. a Writ Petition No. 1035 of 2004 Smt. Mangaii Petitioner Plaintiff Vers us Smt. Parwati and three others Resgondents Plaintiffs xxx Writ Petition under Article 227 cf the Constitution of lndia. 15.03201 (l Smt. Meena Shastri. counsel for the petitioner. Shri Mahendra Dubey, counsel for the respondents. By the impugned order, learned trial Court has rejected the plaintiff’s prayer for taking documents on record. The petitioner/plaintiff has preferred a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession on the basis of Will dated 10.3.1995 executed by late Sukwaria. The suit was filed on 16.4.1998 along with Xerox copy of the Will. At the time of commencement of recording of evidence of the parties, the plaintiff submitted the subject application for production of original copy of the Will and the Power of Attorney for the purpose of authorizing her elder son Ramdayal to depose on her behalf. The said application was objected to by the defendants/respondents on the submission that no reason has been assigned for delay in production of original copy of the Will. The defendants did not object to taking on record the Power of Attorney. 3. Learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that since the provisions contained in Order 13 Rule 2 of CPC have already been deleted. the documents cannot be taken on record. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion thatvthe impugned order, if allowed to stand, shall occasion failure of. justice. lt is trite law that parties to the suit should be permitted to raise ail such pieadings and submit documents in their possession for i /‘ proving their respective cases. ln the present case, copy of the Will was submitted in the trial Court along with plaint and the original is now sought to be produced before recording of evidence. The amended provision contained in Order 8 Rule 14 of CPC permits the ptaintiff to \ to @ plaintiff sues, along with plaint and can documents Iater on with the leave of the Court in i‘ne present case, Wili i5 the crux of the dispute between the parties arid if t may net be proper and effeetive adjudication e euit. 6. This Court finds the present to be a fit case for interference under Articie 227 of the Constitution of india, The petition succeeds and thus, etiewed. Copy of the Will and the Power of Attorney shall be taken on record by the triai Court, and hearing of the suit shall proceed in ot produce documeni on which also pmduce the he said document is not aiiowed i0 be pieced on record! there fthe subject matter of the 5n accordance with law. ff i w sdi- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge x