-HC—78 ?^ •^IAlld'4, ytTt'y'Ko, fqcii'<Hlj,< t(T*(CfT thHKtl •?FI,200 sn^i w f<-< (T!in 13en^?T st)+i Sf^V 'T^T (1pf3^?) wiiw^frow^i SINGLE BENCH: HON' W.Pj PETITIONER DEFENDANT RESPONDENT PLAINTIFF 23.07.2008 4>I^Id41Tl W^ ^f fe^ <faf^l< ^; 3ffiTO 3D^?I BLE JUSTICE DHIRENDRA MISHRA [2271 No.3671/08 Vs Uma^hankar Chaturvedi S/o R.S. Chaturvedi, aged |about 44 years, R/o Rajiv Vihar, Near Rajki^hore Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilas^urC.G. Kamsjl Khare, S/o Ramji Khare, aged about 45 ye^re, R/o Village Nargoda Seepat, Tahsil Seep Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Adfocate for the petitioner. '. Shailendra Sqni, Ad Heard. This petition is directed ^gainst the order dated 17.3.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed in M.J.C. No.1B Judge, Bilaspur has ailowed tt under Order 11 Rute 16 ofthe Learned counsei for the the pieadings of the defendant that there is no pleading that production of documents whicl possession. Refemng to Order CPC it was argued that notic^ it, District Biiaspur C.G. 'ocate for the respondent. 103. whereby learned 1st Additional District e application of the respondnet/plaintiff filed pPC and directed the petitioner/defendant to produce the originals of agreeifient dated 21.5.2003 and compromise deed dated 15.10.2003. petitioner submits that from bare perusal of in his written statement it wouid be evident he is in possession of the documents in question and therefore, no dii|ection to the defendant could be given for 1 according to the defendant are not in his 11 Ruie 16 and Form 7 in Appendix-C ofthe for production of such documents can be yiveii whii;!) fifids lefoieiice in Uie pieading or affidavlts of a party. (f.f3-"^ .2'R» 'a. "ft R ^S,-.^.V '""XI-HC—78 sn^T w (<•<!'* ?TSTT a>7T^?T Sti^llctt ^ 'ssr "4i^i<-f'4, ®tt1y'i<o,fqciiyy *II*I(^T tiNicd Jf% 200 s^v Traq? ('i'lfj'l'l*') wiiWHftw •sn^i Z-- Therefore, in the inslant case iit defendant with respect to the| directed to produce the said doc On the other hand, lea| submits that Section 30 of CPC] interrogatories, admission of inspection, production, impouj materiai objects producible as compromise deed are in poss^ court in the interest ofjustice al| and directed the petitioner/defei| From perusal of the imp|i has not referred to by the defendant that the therefore, in the considered op|i Order 11 Rule 16 ofCPC could the documents in question and| of it illegal and the same is liabl In the resutt, the petitiot|i 17.3.2008 ofAnnexure P-1 pas{ hereby set aside. Certified copy as per rul^i impfugned either the pl^adins docuilnents +i<ili'f<fl-i imaf fl fetzt <Rit<;i< ^afRnaiT^n the absence ofpleading or affidavit by the documente in question, he could not be tuments. 1'ned counsel for the respondent / piaintiff ^ empowers the court to order answering of (iocuments and facts, and fhe discoveiy, ^ding and return of documents or other ^vidence. Since the original agreement and ^ssion of the defendant, therefore, the tria! |owed the application by the impugned order |dant to produce the said documente. order it is evident that the trial court (adings of the defendant or any affidavit filed in question are in his possession and inion of this Court no such direction under be issued to the petitioner for production of |as such, the impugned order is on the face tobesetaside. is allowed and the impugned order dated >ed by the court betow in M.J.C. No.16/02 is Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge