'^-fa.j..-f IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.\ W.P.227NO. /^ 0^-72009 PETITIONERS /' rf<" >^^:2. 5^'"""^»-^ s«.- RESPONDENTS 'i'ws^'^ IE&,. '^^h*t :1 Minor Kirtan, S/o. Bunaram, Caste- Uraon, aged about 17 yeaFs, Through : Natural Guardian Father Bunaram, S/o. Bolo, Caste-Uraon<^<- O^thAJ'- 40> ^&fcn- ^/' Minor Ajay Kumar, S/o. Rafel, Caste-Uraon, aged about 10 years, Through : Natural Guardian - Father Rafel, S/o. Bolo, Caste-Uraont^<--ai°'J" hs St-t^^ s- Both Occupation-Agriculturist, R/o. Village and Post Diwanpur, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS ^:1. Minor Rajanti, D/o. Peturam, Caste- Uraon, aged about 9 years, Through : Next Friend, Jugnu, S/o. Lachhu, Caste-Uraon, aged about 45 years, R/o. Diwanpur, Tahsil-Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) ,2. Shiv Prasad, aged about 27 years, S/o. Dileram, . 3. Sunil, aged about 22 years, S/o. Dileram No.2 and 3 both- Caste-Uraon, R/o. Village Hurwe (Aundhi), Tahsil Manpur, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) , 4. GuniBai, W/o. Latiram, aged about 70 years, Caste-Uraon, Occupation- Agriculture, R/o. Village-Diwanpur, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.). At Present R/o. Village Hurwe (Aundhi), Tahsil Manpur, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) /5. "The State of Chhattisgarh, T+n-ough the Collector, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA v ^ HIGH COURT OFXSHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SJnale Bench : HOn'bleShriPrashantKumarMishra,J, Petitioners Writ Petition f227) No. 1908 of200a. Minor hOrtan and another Respondents Versus IVIinor Rajanti and others •^s/i Writ petition under Article 227 of theGonstitution of India Present: Shri Raghavendra Pradhari, counseifor tMepetitioners^ Non$ fer^spondents No. 1 to 4. SMn S||{eey Agrawal, Panel Lav^ .•,;No.5^g &:/';"<'1 :-:"C ::' : / ;-:':'::': ..' '':/:" ORALORDER (22nd October, 2010) .': Heard.:/ . ;, : : . : • ; ,'/ ! . •. ' • . 2) Thetrigl CourthasrejectedtheapplJeatipn underOrclerVIII, Rule 1A (3) 6fthe Code of Civil Procedure (for shprt 'C.P.C.') filed by the F^tjtioners / defendahts No,3 and 4, seeking. leave to 'prociyee^hedQcument.^^^, • .. 1! •;' ^ ' ' " . ' . ' • : . 3) The plaintiffi llas filed thei suirfor declaration, partition^^and mesne profit; The defendants^ have preferred theiR written statemehtandftayeffiad&pleadings^inparagraRKs^,1C^ahcF1^ theeffecrtthatdefendanfeNOi1&2^aRdtheirbr6therPeturaml-taye ~i. .. M ^) li! »• sold the land to defendants No.3 arid 4 after receiving the amount of consideration and the possession was also handed over to them. 3) The subject applieation under Order VIII, Rule 1A (3) of the C.P.CwasTiledseekingleavetoproducedocumentonthegroynd thatthedocumentdated 03.03.1997 bywhichthelandwassoldin favour of defendants^No.3 and 4, was misplaced as it remained in the file maintained by the counsel for the proceedings in the Court of Tahsildar anctthus, the delay is bona ficte. 4) The trial Court has rejeeted the said application on the ground thatthere is no averment in thewritten statement about any document executed on 03.03.1997. 5) On perusal ofthe wriften statement (Annexure P/3) it would appear that in paragraphs 7,10 and 14, defendants No.1 to 4 have' mentioned that the land was sold to defendants No. 3 and 4 on 03.03.1997after receivingthefullconsideration. 6) In view pf the above; it cannot be said that therei is no averment regarding sale of the tand in favour of defendants No.3and4on 03.03.1997. Theissueastowhetheranydocyment executedon 03.03.1997 woyld be legally admissible in evldence or not, is a question to be determined in the suit and merely becausethedQCumentisnotasaledeedorthatthereisnospeeific avermentthat asaledeedwas also'executed on 03.03.1997^Tnay not be aground for refysal to grant leave to produce the doeument. 7) In the opinionofthis Court, feamed trial Coyrt has cornmitted material irregularityin exerojse ofthejurisdictjonbydisallowingthe petitioners' prayer under Orcler VIII, Rule 1A(3) of the C.P.C; h1 8) In the result, thewrit petition succeedsand is altowed. The document Tiled along with the applieation under Order VIII, Ryle 1A (3)afthe C.P.C., is allowed_to beprodueed in the suit. • subbu SAV- I^ashant KumarMishra Judge .•^ iiil h ~f