@ 1N THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.). WRIT PETITION No. T32 /2oo4. PETITIONER PLAINTIFF RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS : /Goku1 S/o' Tilochan Mahar, aged about 56 years, R/ 0 Village— Khapari, P.O. Barbaspur, Patwari Halka N0.— 38, R.I.C. 85 Tahsil Gunderdehi, District— Durg (C.G.). VERSUS : 1. Rajwantin Bai W/o Punuram Baya, Aged about 55 years, R/ o. Vlllage Mokha PO Rajoli, Tahs11— Gunderdehl District Durg (C G ) a) Yadavram Gangeswar S/o Romnath Aged about 4O years, Resident of Vidhansabha, Office Raipur (C .G.). (b) Domanlal Gangeshwar S/o Romnath, Aged about 37 years, Present Address, Sahayak Vikas Vistar Adhikari, Baghbahara, Post office Baghbahara, District Mahasamuand (C.G.). g/ (c) . Smt. Arti W/o Amarchand, Rampuriya "Amar Sadan" Near Ganga Bhawan, Be- hind Water Tank Sikaripara, Balod, District Durg (C.G.). Bhokluram Chandradev S/o Punuram, caste-Mahar, Age 32 yers, R/o. ‘Village Mokha, P.O. Rajoli, Tahsil-Gunderdehi, Dis— trict Durg (C.G.). 4/. Bh’agwat S/o Jainu Mahar, Age— yrs., ‘Kotwar‘, R/o. Village— Khuteri, P.O. 86 Tah. Gunderdehi, Distt. Durg (C.G.). /5. $ing§=a aBen'ch State of Madh‘ya Pradesh NOWv State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Collector, District Durg (C.G.). 5”)W WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (V XI—HC—ZZ WW, Wang,W Petitioner by Shn' Santo§ Shri Ajay Shrivastava, cC‘ P. S. Koshy, Deputy Adv‘ the Respondent No5] State. Learned counsel for the this mater, as learned counse1 does not want to oh any reply wants to argue the matter for {J trial Court ls stayed on account Heard. The petitioner has nled tE otder passed by the 4": Civil t whereby learned court below ht plamw/petmoner under orde1 ground that the apphcatlon proceedings of the suit. The brief facts leading to h Yadn, Advocate. unsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 4. )cate General takes notice on behalf of palties are ready for iinal disposal of for the respondents submits that he on behalf of the respondents and he inal disposal as the proceedings of the ofming of this writ petition. Lis writ petition being aggrieved bythe tudge Class-n, Burg dated 2.12.2004 is rejected the application hled by the 18 Rules 17 of the C.P.C.'on the has been filed just to delay the of this wn‘t petition are that the before the civil Court meat 'a suit for ' g Wu mamarw WW%‘%¢T®§R %Wm 15.3.2005 opposed the prayer made praycr made by the pen'ti 1'7 of the C.P.C. and he the petitioner and argued that the was not covered under Order 18 Rule er submitted that as far as the tendering ' o y r ‘XI—HC-22 r MW, m,W W Wm Mowwen. Hi 200 W ' Wmmm WW§WW .,..—Z r $Wm Revenue Case No. 643-A/(5, 1997-98 order, dated 30.9.98 and Revenue Case No. 3-A/ 27, 1998-99 Order dated 8.1.1999. Said application i was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 25. 1 1.2003 observing therein that there is no need to call the records as the plaintid‘ could have produced the certified copy of the orders, instead of calling of the records of the cases. I-t appears after this order the petitioner] plaintilf moved an application under order 7 rule 14(3) and the same Was all ed by the tn'al Court Vide order dated 30.9.2004 the documents h e been placed on record. Thereafter the Rule 17 plaintih' herein moved an ap lication under Order 18 praying therein that the petitioner] laintiii‘ wants to recall him so as. to tender these documents in o evidence. That application has been the order dated 2. 12.2004. rejected by the trial Court by the impugned Learned counsel for e petitioner argued that since these documents are important fo just decision of the case. Therefore, it is necessary for the petitione to tender these documents into the evidence, therefore, the al Court ought to have recalled the petitioner] plaintiii' for tende ' g these documents into evidence and marking of exhibits, which ere permitted to, be taken on record vide order dated 30.9.2004, a that situation arose only after the examination of the plaintiff as over. W‘On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents XI—HC—22 aQwm WW WW of thcs‘e docinnents into ev’ ence is concerned, counsel for thc respondents is ready to ad 't the existence of these documents subject to legal objections an in this given situation the petitioner’s examination becomes redund t and unnecessary and in this way these documents may be tend ed into the evidence. Having heard learned ounsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and cimtmstances of the case, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondents appears to be just, fair and proper. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the trial Court is directed to allow the counsel for the respondents/defendants for admission or denial, for Whidh learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that he would admit the existence of the docnments subject to legal objections; ese documents can be marked and considered in accordance wi law and thereafter hnal arguments may be heard and the case m y be disposed of. Ski/— L,C.BHAD00 Judge Certihed copy as per R es.