BEFORETHEHON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (2271 No. /2011 PETITIONER PLAINTIFF RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS ^^ .je^T ^..'"(-x^~ . :. y Ajay Singh Thakur, aged about 26 years, s/o Shri Manharan Singh Thakur, r/o Station Road, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS . :1. Harshit Vihar singhaniya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Through Director, Subodh Singhaniya, aged 49 years,s/o Shri Shyamlal Singhaniya, R/o Choubey Colony, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Sfate of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^\^-",/ p!^/ ^v^°y ^:^' "' ^ '\^-~' l^ 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As mentioned above inthe cause title. 2. PARTICULARS 0£THERESPONDENT As mentioned above in the cause title. y •^•^^''^^•^'^^^'•^• ?'?'^^^;^^';^^^^^^^^^^!^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P. (227)No. 535/2011 Ajay Singh Thakur Versus Harshit Vihar and another ^ SB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri A.K. Prasad, Advocate, for petitioner. Shri G.D. Vaswani Govt. Advocate for the respondent No. 2. None for respondent No. 1. O RAL ORDER. (1-2-2011) 1. Instant petition is directed against the order dated 10-1-2011 whereby the trial court has permitted defendant to exhibit three documents as Ex. D-1, D-2 and D-3 i.e. Kistbandi Khatauni, Khasra Panchshala and spot inap with the observation that mere exhibition is not a proof and at this stage the documents are only exhibited and their admissibility or otherwise shall be considered at the time of final hearing. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any substance in the petition. It is settled law that mere exhibition of document is not its proof. The petitioner is at liberty to put all questions in cross-examination showing that the documents are not genuine and the court will certainly consider its relevancy at ths: time of hearing. 3. 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 cases where perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 4: In view of above, the petition being devoid of substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. -—~~ ' ^X.Agra^ai Judge