Eiwf/ @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 7;) f3 4' OF 2003 / Municipal Comoran'on, Through Commissioner, / Municipal Corporation \ ‘ Raigarh (C.G.) ERSUS a"f ONDENTS .- i. ’ Json Ajay of Agrawai Shri Briimohan Agrawal Os!” $‘@g Aged 25 years, i , \' "i Contractor, (§€5‘ (14. ‘ W9? $. '2'”. Raigarh R/o. Danipara, (co) $."@‘§Q> .. " (39' 0g u Q (‘99 - ‘0 0‘ J’ 4". WRIT ' PETITION CONSTITUTION UNDER ARTICLE OF INDIA 2&227 3f OF THE N“ V P / *anmm WE m WW<W) W‘am wm §a aifau m mm mm 33%?! 15.11.2003 Shri Kishore Bhadtri, coujpel for the peTi‘Honer The petitioner has prefe ‘ thls wrl? petition under- Ar‘ricle 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by fhc order dated 28 O7 2003 passed by the District Jwdge. R igarh, hy which thz Ieorned District Judge has allowed the application of th plaintiff nled imder- Order 11 Rule 16 for production of documents and documents 1 to 3 which are ment I have heard the leamed ounsel for the petitioner. ’ Leornedoounsel for the tit-inner submits that the petitiomr cannot be directed or forced to produ docunents in order to prove the rose of the piaintiff. The plaintiff m prove his own case and he cannot seek remedy or he cannot ask the dfendant to produce dooments in order to prove his cose. I am of the opinion that e is no force and there is m substance in the argument of the learned co x ~ for the petitioner for the rmon that it is the duty of the pmties toproduce docunents which are relevant and necessaryforjustdecision themsewhetherthatpattymaybe defendant even the burden of I f is on the other puny. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court n the cm of Gopal Krislnwi Kethr vs. Mohamed Hqi umf and ~ reported in Am 1968 styrene Court 1413, in pw-a 5 of the judgment - at, light on the facts at issue / ’1‘ XLHC 78 éw W, WW W @752 ZQQ 3 mm (wwkx) airw mW wry Saw Wm‘ § gmrt ef§ri Wéa WW ’WW ._ 2- E‘? aim 311%?! Therefcre, in View of thq ¢ove, I am of the opinion thaf 'the impugned order of the trial Gaurt i§ no‘r mega! or there is m infimify in this order. By passing fhis order, fhe irial Couri- has not acceded its jurisdiction ‘ or hm not exercised any jurisdicfi n which does no? vest in 'ihe trial Court. The petition is without force d the some is liable to be dismissed./ Accordingly, the petition is dismiss . i: l sd/_ L'C-BHADOO f’f Judge V/VJw/V Soma