<^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fG.G.) W.P.(U/A227) ^-34^/09 - PETITIONER^ PLAINTIFF 1) Basant Kumar .„. ^^'h^n7:^ t^.^!^M1^ ^^^(^.......... .1 :.^ %rl^%.. ^ RESPONDENT DEFENDANT S/o Lacchiram Yadav ^Cf ^Z^ \^{^\^ Aged about 47 yrs, v» ^l^l^ R/o Bhog^ard7Shivrmarayan, Tehsil Navagarh District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2) Pankaj Kumar S/o Jagmohan Das 53 Doshi Aged about 56-years R/o Ward No.2 Akaltara Tehsil Janjgk District Janjgir- Chmapa (C.G.) VERSUS Chmtamani S/oKhemraj Aged ^3^ ^, ^ \^- About 42 years R/o Bhog^ara; Shivrinarayan Tahsil Navagrah District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA '-HC-22 3?TT^r^i ^w^ ^ni^i ^ti^a Sft^W ^7 + -T5r'^Pff?R, '^t'WS. ^wy . ^eD^^).^^ _ "H^ 200( WRCr(T^Wcb "Iq^T' ^pn^T'^nw^ft^ S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K 17,12.2003 Shri Rajeev Bharat, Advijx Heard on admission. The instant petition is 17.11.2009, passed by llnd Janjgir (CG) in Misc. Appeal| whereunder the application Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC has l The brief facts of the cat by the petitioners against applications, one under Order Evidence Act and another Section 151 of CPC. The appiications. Hence this petitio{i Shri Rajeev Bharat, petitioners wouid submit that t| the applications preferred by th^ 1 have heard the counseil The tria! court dismisse^ that the documents sought to before the trial court and seco^ petitioners never applied befo| cbl^d^1r1 'RPR^lf"? fe^ <^<^i< '^'3?rf^R3T^?T Aaarwal cate for the petitioners. |directed against the order dated [ Additional District Judge (FTC), Case No. 1-A/09, whereby and pl-eferred by the petitioners under 9een dismissed. se are that, in an appeai preferred disi|nissa! of their suit, they fi!ed two H Rule 27 read with Section 33 of urjder Order 41 Ruie 21 read with trial court dismissed both the Utioji. ^arned counse! appearing for the ie trial court has erred in dismissing petitioners. |appearing for the petitioners. the first application on the ground pe produced were already exhibited |d appfication on the ground that the 1-e the triai court for examination of ^fer^ HC-22 ^ETI^T'^I R;ti<=r> 37l|E¥i 5t»*iw «f^a Sahu ^7 •^St ^NH^I, ^^41<i. fa^wy 3nip?r 'q^? s= + +11^€fll'g^^p-———*••—••'•'•'•" *^F^ 200 fe^I' 3?n^T ^RTTW 1?rf^T handwriting expert. The afor€Js< said to be illegal, perverseor| find any jurisdictional error ^. under Article 227 ofthe Constl It is well settled principl{ of its supervisory jurisdiction i|nder of India, shouid refrain itself fr<tm by the Court below, except] iliegality, irregularity or jurisdicjtional of the record, which is not in ttije The petition has no dismissed in limine. ^aid orders of the trial court cannot be |without jurisdiction, therefore, 1 do not ^arranting interference of this court fution of India. of law that this Court, in exercise Articie 227 of the Constitution interfering with the order passed in such cases where perverslty, error is writ large on the face |e present case. and the same is accordingly rrjerit chl^f<rt^T1 Tm^f ^ 1^crt iF^^K ^s^m^n^r Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge [^^f^