HIGHCQURTOFCHHATTiSQARHATBlLASPUR Petitioner Writ Petition No. 1650 bf2006. Smt. Dropadi, wifeofShri Ramhit, aged 35 years, Caste Manjhi, R/o. Ward No.6^ Moharpara, Manendragarh, Post and Tehsil manenetragah, Distt. Korea (C.G.) ResBQndents Vs. 1.': i- 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Ramashanter Singh, aged about 55 years, Upper Division Cferk, S.D.Q. Offfee -• Manendragarh, R/o. G&vemment QuariBr Amakherva Road, Manendragarh, District t&rea(C.G^ AmresMSirgh, son ofRamashankarSihgh, aged 25 years, R/o. Govemment Quartsr Amakherva^Roaa, nearVeferinary Hospital, Mahenclragarli,Distt.Korea(C.G.) Rajesh Singh, sonofRamashankar Sirigh, aged 23 yeare,, R/oi. Govemment Quarter. Amakherva Road, near Veterinary Hosptel, ManeHdragam, Distt.Korea(C.G.) Smt. Vifaiya Bai, daughter of Nan, Gaste- Agariya, aged 60 yeare, R/o. Ward No.2, ManendrE^arM, Post and Tehsil - Manendn^arti.District Korea (C.G.O Slate of; ehhatHsgarh, through Coiiector, :Amb'tepur(^^'^:7':;":'!Y:^J'/i:':::^.'.:,::),.;'^ Rarasingh Son of Ramlal Baiga, aged 27 yearsFBo; Janalq3i.ir, DistnctXOrSa{G.©.) Manoj Tirki; son of Manpranjan Tirki, R/o. Fundur Bihari, Toia, Ambikapur, District Sarguja(C.G^ (Wnt RetitionunderArticte 226/227 ofthe Gonstitution oflndia) Present: .. ,• ':: : .:; . 1;, , '. '• ': 1 ' , . fc Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Shri Shailendra Shukia, eounset for the ^Bioner. . Shri Sunii Sahu, counsei for respondentsNo. 1 to3. StnaieBench:Hon'bleShriDhirendraMishra,J ORAL ORDER ; , ': • . (24.06.2010) 1. In a suit for declaration and perpetyal injunction' against the respondents, the plaintiff Bied an applicaHon under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC and prayed forpermissioh to file original documente referred inthe plaint at the stageof piaintiffsevidence.Tteapplii^onwasrejeetedbythelearnedtrial^ourt w ^^'^^^^^vi^^^?n^^^^^^-.-^^^^•^^^^.^•^^^' s :i on the objection of the defendants with an observation that the plaintiff has not assigned sufficient reason for not filing the documents eartier. Learned coynsel for ttie petitioner submits that photocopies of the documents have been fiied along with the plaint and there is a pleading with respect of the documents in the piaint. In this ciroumstance, the Gourt below ought to have permitted the peUtioner to file the documents in the interestofjustice. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order and argued that the suit was filed intheyear 1997 and the documents were sought to be flled on 21.12.2005, almostS years after filing of the suit and no vaiid r^sons have been assigned for not filing the documents eariier. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the facte that photocopy of the documents were already available on record and there is a pleading in the plaint, lam of the opinion that the frial Court oughtto have permitted the piaintiff to filethedQcumentein the interest ofjusUce. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Order impugned is set aside. The plairitiff's application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC is aitowed. The parties shall appear before the triat Court on 5 Julv.2Q1Q. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge