|«»Nli^^y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BlLASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 2271 No.2821 of 2011 Lp PETITIONER/: (Plaintiff) RESPONDENTS/: (Defendants) Smt. Chetna Surana, aged about 42 years, W/o Shri Anand Surana Kastkar, R/o Village Bhatagaon P.C. No. 105 Ra.Ni.Ma. Raipur, Civil Line, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) Versus 1. Natural Estate, Through partner D.P. Gandhi aged about 55 years, S/o Shri D. Prakash Rao, R/o 92 Shahid Smarak Complex Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) 2. Shri Pratap Singh Kushwaha, aged about 31 years, S/o Shri Daulat Singh Kushwaha, R/o Rajputana House Shantinagar Ward, Jagdalpur (CG) 3. State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector, Raipur (CG) {Writ petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Goutam Bhaduri, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Prafull Bharat, counselforrespondentNo.1. Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.3. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORAL ORDER (15-7-2011) 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality & propriety of theprder dated 24-9-2010 passed bythe 1 Civil Judge Class-11, Raipur in Civil Suit No.29-A/2009, whereby the Court below has dismissed the application filed under Order 11 Rule 1 of the CPC for discovery by interrogation. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, copy of the plaint, copy of the written statement and other documents. 3. As per the written statement, respondent No.1 has sold land to 54 persons after plotting the same. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that respondent No.1 has annexed the list to whom it has sold the land, along with date of sale deed and amount. 3s ^^. ••<% s fii .....^I^X % •jlstl0! 1 % "'•—•";'" . y ^' '^, -.•^_,y ^- '%. w?': Soma v/- u^ 5, Virtually, in the light of aforesaid annexures, there is no necessary for permitting discovery by interrogation and the Court below has rightly dismissed the said application. However, considering number of purchasers, respondent No.1 is directed to inform in writing to the petitioner within fifteen days from today whether the date mentioned in column 2 of the aforesaid annexure annexed to the written statement is the date of registration of sale deed, if not then respondent No.1 shall furnish the date of registration of sale deed relating to the persons whose names have been shown in column 4. With this observation, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 6. Consequently, I.A.No.1 also stands disposed of. Sd/- T.P- Sharma Judge ^•"li-UIUI