5 "^. Slngle Banch BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH CQURT QF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) aa^-'_ . <2A^Q W.P.^G^NO. ^yv' Of2011 PETITIONERS W 6.V-ln>^O.A<n^lri. 1. ^;v'/^y ^ ,y ^••••^v' ^'''l^ .•-•''' ^•^/ t*"5^-' ^' RESPONDENT Plo.^+''u • 2. Trilok Singh Virdi, Son of late Dr. Layak Singh Virdi, aged about 55 years, Dr. Hardeep Singh Virdi, Son of late Dr. Layak Singh Virdi, aged about 48 years, Both R/o. House No.200, Civil Line, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.), VERSUS Ramchandra Swami (Nagaridas), Mandir Amin Para, Purani Basti, Raipur, Registered Public Trust, Through : Working Trusti, Shri S.K. Agrawal, Advocate, Son of late K.L. Agrawal, R/o. Turi Hatari, Purani Basti, Raipur (C.G.) ^^w-l WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE SS^ OF THE T CONSTITUTION OF INDIA i 'i'csy'' f g tW^S'^ fy l^. ^[^gi^ 1 "ses"s!y X^HC—78 ^ sii^iw l<!-fi<* ^CCT -itll^fl $f>*Rq) [.— 3'^ Ni*<ni fliiith 'S^ -<iiqi<i<.i, ^ii1'y' , fa<niy3< tj^Ci-2-^} ^-o. ^^s-^-l^n /^. 200 SlA?T 'IRI^ ('^ig^*?) ^rapiR ^lin ^i^iw S.B.: Hon ble Shri *Justice G 30-06-2011 Sliri Raghvencu'a Pradh^ Heard on admission. The petitioner has tileu 227 of flie Constitution cl|iallenguig tlie validily and propriety of the order dated Suit No. 6-A/2009 by 15th Civ^l Judge, Class-II, Raipui'. Brief lacis of respondent/plaintiff has filed and possession of fhe sult jsroperty. hi that suit, uie respondent/plaintiff had mijived an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of Code it>f Civil Procedure for spot inspection to be done and ojji fhis basis, spot iiispectlon was got done by the Revenu^ report before ftie Trlal Com't. of respondent/plauiuff, ttie subniitted by Revenue Inspe^ «»)l<it<7)«il<i'tTffl^if'^f "fe^ •<,la)<5i< ^ysffiwan^lT Minhatyddin. ii, counsel for uj.e.petitloncr. fiiis petition i.uider Ai'tlcle 10-05-2011 passed m CivU fh4 case are that ttie a clvil siiit for declaration Inspector who submitted a During exauilnation m cliief report of spot uispec-tion :tor was exhibited on which objection was raised on behaljf of the petitioner/defendant fiiat the dociinieiit could nolj bear the seal of the Revenue this, fhe respondent/plainti^F is not fhe auttior pfuie_ be exlubited as it does not Inspector and in aduition to r-ciiuui rei, rtppeitdi ii, Mppiicani Respondent, Non-applicant HIG-C 60, Parij'atExtension, NearNehn T 3 XI-HC—78 viwni <ahWh <jir| »q)<))(»]q^ ®TJI<.)<|^ •fqn |y^< uf (^>) r^>. -!> s $'?-/ ^ (' ^^ee- SII^T'q??;' (t<:<fj«<^EI) dll^ijl ^RI l^-fl't ^IWW VS SVWV iBtltl <?«IRB<fl^n snt^T I- -- l:t)i<i[<'i<4l'ri ^mv^ ^f fsl<il Tl^R^K iTsifmsn^T tft' s A' document. This objection ha| Trial Couit aiid flie documentl Merely by exhibiting a autoiuaticaUy proved which provisions of the Evidence exhibited only for the purpose) is every possibility fhat fhej aufiior of the document i.e. Ri| it proved flirough lilm; As enor' or perversity In fhe orde{ Court dated 10-05-20 llwhN tliis Coui't under Article 227 In view of ftie above, iiiotion stage. Certified copy as per rul{ silch iwmcin clt i^ been over ruled by leai'ned |was aUowed to be exliibited. ^ociunent, it does not stand Ijias to be proved as per the ^ct, 1872. A document is of fixiiig a document. Ther'e plamtiff may examine fhe ^venue Inspector aiid wlU get fhere is no jurisdictional passed by fhe learned Trial warrants interference by 3|f the Constltution. fhe petltion is dismissed at .es Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge