ESPENTS ' EFENDANTS x. (1) \ M/s AGRAWAL IRQNxPVT LTD { Plot No 200 SectoruC IndustrlalAr _ Urla Ralpur 493 221 (Chhatt1sgarh 1(2) Mr SUNIL AGRAWAL Director Mr LADDU RAM AGRAWAL Dlrector, “ All above 2 to 4 are D1rectors of the No 1 Company, At Plot no 200 Sector-C Industrlal Area Urla ‘ Ralpur 493 221 (Chhattlsgarh) a v’ ,1 ) A’im § g w (y (3 .‘ J ’i '1 ) Mr SURESH JAIN Dlrector, ;(’( rt 227 f OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA f r Versus ' , ,(:,m ROND :V V .... ’ D / ea ) , ' APETITION U/A ART W XI—HC-78 E W , W , W Wmomlfi‘ogoo4&3” o.o.o E Zooc WW(W) WWW ailmm maxwm WW§WWA éawm 0?.012I’m7 Shn' Satyawan Agrawal, Heard. The petitioner by the in dated 20"“ April 2006 pass whereby the applications pref Rule 2 of the C.P.C., a notic under Order ll ‘Rule l as also under Order 8 Rule l read with taking of the record the written ants after a lapse of one year from rejected. e petitioner submits that the Court' r has illegally rejected the above Section 151 of the C.P.C. sfatement flied by the defen service of summons, have bee I have heald leatned‘ l Learned counsel for t1 below by the impugned applications which has occasi< counsel for the petitioner and have p'emised the impugned order. From perusal of the in order dated {7.3.2005 the de statement and accordingly wri the matter was posted for recording of evidence on two occasions i.e. 3.9.2005 and 8.113005.‘ However, the petitioner/plaintiff did not he above armed counsel for the petitioner. e o l . ,. ... .. . V. med Ianure 01 Justice. produce anV witnesses on t‘r.ose dates and instea tant petition has impugned the order d by learned District Judge, Durg rred by the petitioner under Order 1'2 to admit documents, interrogatories pugned order it is observed that vide fendants were directed to file written tten statement was filed and thereafter, r t d XI—HC-78 Wm..nn.§uuun.u.ai o WrP' ‘ yéy 200 C ,mmaaiam 3 a m , m , m w WWW WWW WWW WW§WW aawm k ‘ at applications on 8. 1 1.2005 which have been rejected by the impugned order. Discovery by inten‘ogato ‘es under Order 11 RuiF: 1 of the e ieave of the Court Whereas under on the other party to admit within seven days from the date of se ice ofthe notice and in case of refusai or Iieglect to admit, after such nofice, the costs of proving any such document shah be paid by the arty so neglecting or refusing. Taking into consideratim that the. written statement was flied by the defendants as per direiiions of the Court below and further considering that the matter Wits fixed for recording of evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no manifest iiiegaiity in exercise of jurisdiction by the Court below which shah occasion faiiure of justice or grave injustice to the parties, which calis for interference under the supervxsory jurisdiction under Articie 2'27 of Constitution of india. in the result, the petition being without substance deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge C.P.C. is to be issued with ’ Order 12 Ruie ’2 C.P.C., notic , to admit documents, opportunity is given to either party to cail MW RIO.