rn 1‘0//1 ‘- m a) ‘ l IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH . AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) w.P.(Art227) No. 5&0 of 2010 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA www-E F PET DefeIrlrdIaonliER /:: T.C.R. Gangadharan, S/o. Raamn, Caste Bramhan, aged 8O years, R/o. Purani Basti, Supela, (Ajay Poultry Farm, i£VC’D\U:L w. ‘Wl ..... ‘. WQW ..... Panch Rasta Supela), Tahsil and District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 9% ,Q‘aw;‘£‘a" taxaju.:.t....mpt5 g ' Versus RES /: Mochan' Prasad Tiwari, son of plain?§fNDENT late Shri Mahadev Prasad ‘Tiwari, aged 62 years, R/o. Bramhan Para, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Cg HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinqle Bench : Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Writ Petition (Art 227) No.560 of 2010 Petitioner TCR Gangadharan Defendant Versus Mochan Prasad Tiwari Resnondent Plaintiff Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of india Present: Shri HB Agrawai, Senior Counsei with Shri Pankaj Agrawai, counsel far the petitioner. ORDER (8m February, 2010) The petitioner herein, in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is aggrieved by order dated 05.11.2009, passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the petitioner’s / defendant’s application under Order Xi Rule 12 of Code of Civil Procedure for discovery of the documents. 2) The respondent f plaintiff has preferred a suit for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises. By the subject application ‘ r under Order Xl Rule 12 of Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant 11 is seeking a discovery from the plaintiff as to on what particular : l 1 l Khasra Number the subject construction is made, so that he may l l i be able to answer the case of the plaintiff in a suitable manner. ‘M *The learned trial Court, by a detailed order has dismissed the @ application after observing that the plaintiff has mentioned the suit property in a map attached with the plaint and that it is the case of the plaintiff that the suit premises is situated at Abadi land. The learned trial Court has further observed that the plaintiff has properly described the suit property. 3) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argues that, if the discovery is not made, the petitioner shall be prejudiced in producing defence with regard to identification of the property. 4) This Court on a perusal of the papers appended with the writ petition is satisfied that the order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity. Even otherwise, it is for the plaintiff to prove his case for eviction with regard to an immovable property by adducing evidence with regard to identification of the property as well. If the plaintiff fails, it is the plaintiff, who shall suffer the consequences. 5) In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any error committed by the trial Court while rejecting the petitioner's application under Order Xl Rule 1 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. 6) The writ petition, fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd//— Prashant Kumar Mishra subbu Judge