g;:^-'1'?1"^ % Petitioners Defendants Respondents Plaintiff HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ PetiUon (Art.2271 No.1759 of 2011 1. Ferha, aged abotA 40 yeare, S/@ Bhagat, 2. Magat, agwl about 70 years, S/o Dansal, ' Both are Caste Satnami, C^cupation Agriculturist, R/o Vilfage Kestara, Tahsil Bemetara, Distrid Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. Punwa, aged about 25 years, S/o Nemslngh, Ca^e S^nami, Occupation Agricukurist, R/o Village Tendua, Tahsll Nawagarh, Etetrltf Durg (C.G.) 2. SmtJankibai, Wd/o Naresh Tandan; aged about 35 years 3. Dharmendra, S/o Naresh, aged about 6 years, 4. Mahendra S/o Naresh, aged about 5 years, Respondent no.3 & 4 are minor through their natural guardian molher Janklbai, Wd/o Naresh, All are Resldent of Village Ke^ara, Tahsil Bem^ara, Distrid Durg (C.G.) 5. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the , CoiSector, Duig(C.G.) (Writ Petition under Articie 227 ofthe Constititlon of India) Mr.P.P.Sahu, counsel fbrthe petitioners. Mr.Y.C.Sharma, counsel for respondent No.1. None present for respondents No.2 to 4. Mr.Sumit Jhanwar, Panel Lawya- for respondent No6/State. (SB; Hon'bte Mr. T.P. Shanna, J.) > OfmER (ORAL) (16-8-2011) 1. By'this wrtt petition under Arttole 227 of the Constitutton of india the petitioners have chailenged the legality & propriety of the ordar dated 2-— 17.1.2011 passed by 1a Civil Judge Clas&-tl, Bemgtara, in Clvil Strtt N0.2-A/2005, whereby on the basis of ap(riication filed by respondent No.l/ptaintiffunderSection 151 ofthe Code oTCivit Procedurethe Court below has dira;ted the petitioners to give further descripti<m atong with documents relating to the dlsputed property. 2. I have heard ieamed counsel for the partias, perused the orcter impugned, copy ofthe plaint, written statement, applicationand afRdavtt filed under Order 18 Rute 4 ofthe Code ofClvil Procedures 3. As per plaint allegation, present respondent No.1 as legsd representative of Nemsingh has filed suit for declaration and possessiai of ttie suit property teft by Bhagaiya. As per piaint atlegation,Bhagaiya has succeeded the property Trom her husband Sukatu after his death. By fiiing wrttten statement, the petitioners have pleaded that Bhagaiya has obtained some property from her father & mother and at»)purehased 5 acres ofthe land. She has not succeeded the property from hCT hisband Sukalu. 4. Both the parties have not pleaded any detail relating to acquidtion ef the property in their pleading. The present petitionersare not ready to give details <rf purchase aiong with documents, therefore, the petittoners cannot be compelled to provide such information. 5. Considering the nature of pleading of the parties, e Gourt bslow was under obligation to restrict the partiesto lead thetr evUenca tottw extent of their pteading. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is atlowed. Order hnpugnwi dated 17.1.2011 is hereby quashed. Court belcw shall re^rict the parties to tead their evidence only to the extent of their pleading snd discanl the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties beyond their pleading. No order as to codts. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ..^—...^^-^J'..-.^ / Y