''^ ,<-^. c>g[,^;; £. ftFittt giKteLK saw. ''?,'>,- IH 3H OF A i HiLAaHUK -°>o.5 /; ^ ,^ ^' u-^^y y^ ^yM^ .^/v^o' .yy fV ^, -^^^ "%'<;^?A^"<^ 'fi '1. Smt. Maiti Bal Years, Wd/o ^ )Ut74 of Late Shri MadhavSitaram Bhale years, y/o Late iViaanav ystaram ihaie Shri A.nil Bhaie S/o Late Madhav Sitaram Bhale Aii R/o Near Hanuman Mandjr Tatyapars. Raipur (C,G.) •Smt. Prakash Kaur aged about 60 vears, W'o Shri Gurobachan Si.ngh, R/o Station Road, RaiDuriC.G.) S E '?"' n& ISStSiisu;! XI-HC-22 33? '-ll^ltl'il, (STfly'IS, (sK'tl'Hy Math II*IMI a»*nw 3TT^5T' ^).p^o,.&3o^ 200 C "R*.^"""""""" an^RTqiT fewsn^T StlKitltlfig' StlKlti 311^1 ^kii^Tflfia' *]<iln<fl-f HiiCTT^:tecfl'<Rit<i< SRsri^Tsn^r l-8-200i Gouhsel <X)rr£ctness Shri Ratan Pusty, Shri B. P. ShanTia, COL|I Hc-ard lcarncd counscll By the insiant petitic|n, legality, propriety and •whereby the application ui| documents on record has Brief facts leaaing t4 respo'ndent herein has tiled the oetitioners in which wri|i framing ot the issuea, e-vide^ice thc plaintiffs statcmcnt ha|s Ecationers- herein moved an C.P.G. ibr takine documentsl 27-3-2002 sent by the for the petitioners. nsel for the respondent. for thc partics, n, the petitioners have quesuoned the ot the order dated 23-3-20Q5 hals ndt advocate tbr the resoondent t| acknowledginent. In the that at the time of fUin»ofj:9 not available as the same w< whv the 'defendants were nd with written staten-ient, Thd delav is bonafide, The defei) delay the proceedings, 1.have uerused.the rejection taken by the' trial tiling ot' wntten statement hl •the petitioners for taking additional |n rejected, filing oi' this writ' petiudn are that ^he suit for specffic perfbnnance against Itten statement has been liled and aiter of the plaintifl has commenced and bccn rccordcd, At ,this stagc, thc |applicaiion ynder Qrder 8 Ruie 1 of the on record i,e, reply ot'the notice dated for the petltioners herein to the terein, postal receipt of the same arid the [lication Annexure-P/7 it was mentioned wntten statement the docuryents were pre kept at sorae other plaoe and that is able to produce the documents along said clocumcnts arc in'uiortant and thc tdants were not having any.intention to aavpcaie apitlication impugnea orcier,, 'i'ne main grouna ot Gburt is that the defendants at the tirne Qt' hfeve notmentioned in the iist about the A "S- '< r^ ^ lifN' XI-HC-22 3n^?r9;r (S-li4) 311^1 OTwgfN •^":- ^ KWCII awitti 3%T'^l<llcl<4,®-rfl«'ls,Rfliyy 311^1 Macft ^.....................g^ ^p RIM w^i ^wiwflfN ._-^ exiatence ot tneae aocuinen) these documents in writterl Rule 1A (3) envisages that'j Couft by the defendant uy3\ not, without the. 'ecn.'e o/tft^ 4 at the hearing ofthe suit' shows fhat the plaintiff herj sent on behaif of defendant) have not produced reply of.) the petitioners herein war^t genuineness pt' this docunij documents i.e, postai receip|l Dct^artnients docurnents, tlT|i Learncd counscl for taking this document on delaved as ttie statementof As the matter relates in which exchange ot' dociji therefore, in order to decide particularly fhe respondent notice has not been product of docunlent becomes more can bc compcnsated in teh passing the1 impugned importance and para-21 ot' application, Therefore, the ij as-aiy'ch the same is lia'oie tot <»)i<flfi<ll-<iiiaTtffstA<R]'tci< ^iari^ITSn^T ts. .Moreover, there is no reference abaui statement, hl this eonnection, Orcler 8 tt dociiment ivhich oitaht to be sroducedin ^r this tvle, but, ia not ao produced shjs.Il pourt, be received in ei"dence onT.is bekcdf Perusal of para-21 of ttie' plaint itself teit'admitted fchat reply of the notice was ^on 27-3-2002 ancl sinc-e the petitioners the notice with the iplaint and that is why to produce that document, thereiore, ?nt cannot be doubfced, Moreover, other t and acknowledgement, which are Postai jeir genuinencss also cannot be doubted, rcspondcnt argucd that on accQunt of j-ecord unnecessarily proceeding will be the Dlaintiff has alreadv been recorded. (o the specific performanee of the contract Isment becomes relevant and important, |:he dispute bera;een the parties and inore even after admitting that reply of the fcd the same on record, as such presence l-elevant and for the deiay the respondent tebns of cost, Lcarncd trial Court whi'c Q]rder, v/ithout considering the above biaint of the pefitioners, has rejected the tnpugned order suffers fram ttis illegaiity, Ibe setasidc, XI-HC-22 3n^r?!T R-<i<*3n^r CTWflfStr 35T ^|<!|d^, (9Tflu'IS, f°l<'IIUy 3iict<'i^i5|cn liini sniicnte-^P.ts^.^ft^ 200^ R<)«^ As far'as other applic^ petitioners submitted thatl application is dismissed as t| In t.hc circumstanccs, \ Court 's directed to takc payment ot'.cosi of Rs,300/-| peutioners herein are eni] evidence. However, if the r^ defendants itis necessary fc| documents in rebuttal, then| evidence, With the direction afd Conaequently, M.(¥/.)I] Partics arc cntitlcd.ioil 't>wf<'i41"< tiiwTfffe^<Ri«;i< ^i3rf^iT3n^r .tion is concerned, learned caunsei for the he is not pressinR the same, The iQt pressed, thc impugued order ia quashed, Thc trial thesc' dpcumcnts on rccord subjcct to by the petitioners to the respondent, The itled to tender these documents into 'spondent feels that after evidence of the ir her to give1 evidence in respect of these the plaintiff will be antitied to adduce the resaid, the oetition stands disoosed of, '. No.2439/2005 also stands diauosedof, ccrtificd copy of this ordcr, L.C. Bhadoo