1:1 Sl.?^.. &1: 1.E::' e ^'l^ INTHE HON'BLE HlGHCOiURTOFCHHATtISGARI-i AT BILASPUR ;.'. :• . -..::. ^;.;:..1..: W.P.fArt 2271 N0. Lato ' ~ /2010 PETmONERS/ Defendantno. 1 to 10 "' 1. Sivram, S/o Ghursai, aged about 55 years, ^ " /2. Prernsai, S/o Ghyrsai, aged about 55 years, ^3. Mankunwar Wd/o Ghursai, (Since.Dead ) ; , ; All ••by?, .casfe. Rajvvar,. ^^ R/o WahuSfi^a" }<^^FW^^^^^^^^^^^^ BaTkHMhRur,0istt. KOTia^(C.©.)^ --4. Smf%SQhalinatfc D^o^Stiarathi^ ageci al3(3yt 5S years, caste Kumhar, R/o VillageA Khdrwat, Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt, Koria 1(C.G.)\ :••.'::, •,,.,1^ ^S. Smt Kamla Devi W/o RamprakashSahu,aged abQt.it 30 years, caste sal'iy, R./o Village Rampur, P.S. Patna, Tahsi 1 Baifcu nthRur, DistK Koria (C.G.) ;: •':.•;:''.'..,:•;• --6. Sitaram S/o Mardwar Yadav, aged aboyt 45 years, R/o Village Cldgi, P.S. & Tahsil Baikuhthpur, Distt. Koria (C.G.) 7. Ramesti Kumar Agrawal, S/o Late Bajjnath .Prasad Agrawal, aged aboul 46 years, R/a Village Bajkyrithpy r, ward no. 5, Tahsjl. Baikuhthpur; Distt. Koria / .•-<• --.t 2. ^-8. Shivram Sahu S/6 Late » Lakhesttwar, aged ab&ut 55 years, ^3. Ramsewak ; Sahu, Slo Late Lakheshwar,aged? about 50 years/:^' : • •-•:'' '':,: '•:. , ;' •• ^LO. Ramnarayan Sahu, S/o Shri Ramsurider, aged abdut 38 years,,' . ' ,: ; .:•:,•...• No. 8 to 10 all by caste sahu, R/6 ViHage^Odgi, P.S. & Tal-rsil Baikunthput', Distt. Koria (C.G.) ::.;.-.\VERSUSI'..-;:- :'^;:;:.-';..''': ':. :'. :; RESPONDENTS/ ^.^ © •\^-^..:^: •;;^,about^;58'fyears','/:ca^^^ Occupation-Agricultural, R/o Kharwat, Mahuapara, Tahsil Baikunftipur^ Distt. Koria (C.G.) ^ 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Tllrough the Collectdr, Koria, Baikuntl-ipur, Distt. Koria (C.G.) WRITPETITlON UNDERARTIC1-E 2270F ^C6lSIST3EtUTIO -(>^iN0IA^'.^,:::,-.y;'-]'t;^ 1. PARTICULARSOFTHEPEtITIONERS As mentioned in the cause title above; PLAINTIFF PARtlCULARSOiFTHEllESPQNDENTS As mentioned in the causetitle above. PAirTIGULARS &F ^E ORDER fS^^ ^ AGAINSTWHICHPET1TI<»NISMADE. i HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS W.P. (227) No. 6670/2010 Shivram and others Versus Dularsai and another SB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri D.N. Prajapati,Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri Ariil Gulati, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer, for the State. ORAL ORDER (15-3-2011) 1. Order dated 11-11-2010 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Baikunthpur Distt. Koria in Civil Suit No. 25-A/2002 is under challenge by way of the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of Indian. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that respondent No. 1 Dularsai (henceforth 'the plaintiff) instituted a suit for declaration of sale deeds dated 19-3-1997 and 26-6-2002 as null and void and further for partition and injunction. On 2-12-2008, petitioners have moved an application Section 45 of the Evidence Act for examination of the signatures and fhumb impressions over the disputed sale deeds by handwriting expert. The application was allowed. Despite several opportunitigs petitioners did not proceed to examine the signatures and thumb impressions by handwriting expert, instead they proposed to examine the stamp vender and the clerk from the office of Sub- Registrar in place of handwriting expert. The trial Court vide order dated 11-2-2010 allowed the petitioners'prayer. Thereafter on 11-11-2010 the above mentioned witnesses were examined. At this stage, petitioners' counsel has again prayed orally for examination ofhandwriting expert. The same was turned down by the impugned order and fhe case was fixed for final arguments. '<iS£ 7. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order irnpugned. A bare perusal df the order-sheet dated 17-8-2009 would reveal, earlierthe case was fixed for judgment in the year 2008. Due to the application filed by the petitioners for examination of signatyres and thumb impressions by handwriting expert, the matter was again posted for examination of the dOGuments by handwriting expert. Petitioners failed to examine the documents by handwriting expert despite several opportunities granted and instead of examining the documents by handwriting expert, they proposed to examine relevant witnesses i.e. Stamp Vender and Clerk from the office of Sub-Registrar. The same was permitted by the trial Court and those witnesses were already examined. Again at this stage, oral prayer made by the petitioners was only to delay the disposal of'the suit and no equity Ues in petitiohers' favour. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly decUned to aecept the prayer. In view of above, I do not find any iUegality or material irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdietion under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jiirisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the brder passed by the Court below exeept in such cases where perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is writ large on fhe face of fhe record, which is not in the present case. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition being without substance is liable to be and is hereby disinissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge $9 ^••^