3 BHNBUE BEN t. IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR about 28 years, ...(defendant no.6) 6) W.P.(U/A. 227) No. lgg 2’ /2o11 PETITIONERS 1] Smt. Neeta Ben Patel, W/o. Defendant no. 2 & 3 Amritlal Patel, aged about 45 years, R/o. Shivsadan Timber Market, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2] Smt. Savita Ben, W/o. Prabhudas Patel, aged about 43 years, R/o. Shivsadan Timber Market, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Both above through: their power of attorney holder namely Amritlal Patel, aged about 46 years, S/o. RESPONDENTS Shivdas Patel, R/o. Shivsadan, Behind TVS Suzuki Showroom, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS /" 1] Chhaganlal Patel, S/o. Late PLAINTIFF Karamsi Bhai Patel, aged abut 48 years, R/o. Timber Market, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2] /Narendra Kurnar Patel, S/o. Karamsi Bhai Patel, aged about 46 years, R/o. 63/32 Corporation Complex, Aarkat Road, Kodam— bakkam, Chennai—24 ...(defendant no.1) 3] Smt. Heera Ben, W/o. Devram Bhai, aged about 55 years, R/o. Kotda (Nakhtarana), Post Kotda, Tahsil Nakhtarana, District Kachchhabhuj (Gujarat) ...(defendant no.4) Harsukh Lal, S/o, Moolji Bhai, aged about 31 years, ...(defendant no.5) 5] Bharatlal, S/o. Moolji Bhai, aged @ 6] Amrit, S/o. Moolji Bhai, aged about 26 years, ...(defendant no.7) 7] Haresh, S/o. Moolji Bhai, aged about 24 years, ...(defendapt no.8) Respondent neg to g are R/o. Kashyap Timber Nagor, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) w 8] Vanita, D/o. Rajaram, aged about 25 years, R/o. Navavas, § Nakhtarana, Kachchhabhuj (Gujarat) x WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 221 OF THE N CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONERS Smt. Neeta Ben Patel & another VERSUS Chhaganlal Patel & otrs he (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUION QF_ I_N__A) (SB: Honble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) : Shri Mano Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioners. Present j I _‘ DJ ’ ORAL ORDER e (Passed on 22.03.201 1) l. The instant petition is irected against the order dated 15.02201 1, d passed by the District Judge, Rajndgaon, in Civil Suit No. 38- A/07, whereby the petitioner’s/defendant’s application filed under Oer 8 Rule l of CPC was dismissed. rd 2. Brief facts of the ce are : petitioners did not file document in question nor disclose te fact whether or not document in question is h in their possession, along‘with written statement filed in the case. 3. The trial court dismissed the above application. Hence this petition. 4. The provisions contained i Order 8 Rule l-A of CPC reads as under: “[1 -A. Duty of defendant to roduce documents upon, which relief is claimed or relied upon by him- (1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support ofhis defence or claim for set off or counter claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in court when the written statement is presented by him and HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 1552 of 2011 RESPONDENTS an as n p a @ shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement. (2) Where any such document is not in possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3 A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behal at the hearing of the suit]. (4) Nothin thi rule all apply to documents— g in s sh (a) ode or cross-examination of the plaintiil‘s witnesses, or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.]” It is clear that petitioners did not comply the provisions quoted . hereinabove, inasmuch as, neither document or its copy was tiled along with written statement nor the fact whether or not document in question is in their possessn was disclosed. io In view of above, I do no nd substance in the petition warranting interference of this ourt under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. 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 ces where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictiona error is wn't large on the face of the record, which is not in the present ease. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sdl- N.K. Agrawal Judge ) f prucd f the t fi any c as l