/ "7 \‘0 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION [227) No. 5210 OF 2011 PETITIONENR PLAINTIFF Bharat Aluminium Company, A Company incorpmated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registere omce at Aluminium Sadan, Core- 6, Scope Office Complex—7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003 and also carrying 011 business from P.O. Balco Nagar, District Korba 495 684 (Chhattisgarh) Anish Metals Pvt. Ltd. A Company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office and cai‘ryiug on business from 60, Kansara Chawl, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai—4OO 002. Pankai Aluminium Industries Ltd. A Company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office and carrying on business from 106, CRK Wadi, lst Floor, 114 V.P. Road Mumbai 400 084. Pankaj Extrusion Ltd. A Company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office and carrying on business from 15/ 1/4, Rakholi village Silvassa, UT of D & NH. Pankaj Metais Pvt. Ltd. A Company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered o$ce and canying on business from 55—C, 15‘ Khattalali Lane, Thakurdwar Road, Mumbai 400002. Hiren Aluminium Ltd, A Company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office and 4 carrying on business from 126/ 1, Rakholi village near Rakholi School, Rakholi, UT of D 65 NH State Bank of India, A Banking Compmiy Constituted ander the State Bank of India Act, 1955, having its Head Oii‘ice at Corporate Centre, State Bank 'Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, VERSUS RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS k) Mumhai —400 021 and carxying on business from Balco Township Balco Nagar, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) 495684. Bank of India, A Banking ‘ Company Constituted under the Banking CompaniaS (Acquisitiqn) and Transfsr of undextakings) Act, 1970, having its Head omce at Express Towers, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 O21 and also carrying on business from Kalbaclevi Branch, Round Building, Shyamaldas Gandhi Marg, Mumbai 400 002. .ARCIL Shliopati Arcade Angmt Kranti Marg, Mana Chowk, Mumbai 400036. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF (SB’ :Hoa’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate With Shri Sudeep Agrawal, INDIA. (\ Advocate for the petitioner. Respondents not noticed. ORDER (Passed on 06/09/201 1) Court of Delihi is rejected. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order ' dated 19/ 8/ 201 1 passed by District Judge, Korba, C.G. in civil suit No. 1-A/2006 whereby application tiled on behalf of the petitioner for recalling of the witnesses of plaintiif] petitioner and 3 witnesses of respondents for proving the certiiied copy of the judgment of High Shn‘ Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate with Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner is heaiii. 8. Vide order dated 18/8] 2011 in WP. (227) No. 4709/2011 this Court has directed to allow the petition for taking document on record to the extent of judgment of High Court of Delhi dated 23/3/2011. \ 4. After aforesaid order petitioner has again $€d application for recalling the plaintjii’s witnesses and 3 defendants Witnesses for proving the aforesaid document i.e. judgment of High Court of Delhi. Judgment of competent Court of justice is a public document and it can be well proved by its protection before the Court in accordance with Sections 74, 76 & 77 of the Evidence Act but instead of applying for simply marking document as exhibit to considering the same in the hearing petitioner has filed another application for proving the document by examining witnesses and cross examination of 3 witnesses of defendants in these circumstances Court below has rightly rejected the application tiled on behalf of the petitioner. Considering the fact that judgment of the Court may be proved by its protection and simply marking Ex. -P or EX.— D are required under Section 77 of the Evidence Act to facilitate the Court or parties for pointing out or placing reliance on the document for which petitioner may apply to the trial Court and considering the attitude of the petitioner, petition is dismissed inlimine subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondents for causing unnecessary delay in trial. If prayer is made by petitioner before the Court then Court shall simply mark the document as Ex. P/D for pointing out and placing reliance. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge