1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIsGARH AT BILASPUR w. P. (227) No. \géq OF 2011. V PETITIONER r, k V \qmjh ‘ 1F?“’ S/o. Late Tota Ram Sadani, aged about 61 years, Resident of CH? Pandri, II/ Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) T 2 / Narayan Das, VERSUS RESPdNDENTs :1. Qty—{aka uvxgta 3, State of Chhattisgarh, Through : District Collector, Raipur, Distt. Raipxir (C.G.) 2. Shri U. R. Netam, Tahsildar, Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.) 3(i) Smt. Jagdish Kaur, W/o. Sardar Rajinder Singh, l aged about 48 years, /(ii) Rana Sikander Singh, S/o. late Rajinder Singh, aged about 24 years, I,” (iii) Rana Sakti Singh, S/ o. late Rajinder Singh, aged about 2 1 years, Respondent no. 3 (i), 3(ii) 85 3(iii) are legal heirs of late Sardar Rajinder Singh and Resident of Ahmed Ji Colony, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227‘0F THE ‘ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 1564 of 2011 PETITIONER/ : Narayan Das Plaintiff VERSUS RESPONDENTS/ : State of Chhattisgarh & othcrs Defendants (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227_ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri Shrawan Agrawail, Advocate for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 22.03.201 1) l. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 24.01.2011, passed by the Ilnd Civil Judge, Class II, Raipur, in Misc. Civil Suit No. 10-A/07, whereby the petitioner’s/plaintiffs application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC was dismissed. Brief facts of the case inc : petitioner did not file document in question nor disclose the fact whether or not document in question is in his possession, along with written statement filed in the case. The trial court dismissed the above application on the ground that above document is not relevant to the facts of the present case. Hence this petition. 4. The provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC reads as under: “14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies- (1) Where a plaintiE sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the i same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. [(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiE when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave ofthe Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearin of the suit]; (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiiTs witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.]” 5. It is clear that petitioner did not comply the provisions quoted hereinabove, inasmuch as, neither document or its copy was filed along with plaint nor the fact whether or not document in question is in ther i possession was disclosed. In View of above, I do not hnd any substance in the petition warranting interference ofthis court under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India. 7. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and is herebyvdismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/— N.K. Agrawal Judge g