»to ...,• ,-.r;-r", •^.^-y\^-^ '^-^•^^.-•- ^^•::^c^^--"""" Si ^'fc.a y ^;; ^ it ^•v"^w~~ 'y,^6]^.l.'-<r- AB*-" ,M^ &»'t IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. N0. &s^:% /2006 PETITIONER Plaintiff / :^ Dadu S/o Shiv Prasad, caste Brahmin, aged 49 years, R/o Village Bagda, Tahsil Pratappur, Distt Sarguja (C.G.) RESPONDENTS:1 Defendants ^2.(A) . (B) ^3. / 4. 5. /6. 7. o^'^ .^O^/,^' .,s i<!'y/ ^\\s^ y y wy^. . <0 / 8. 736 VERSUS Vindhyavasini S/o Shiv Prasad, by caste Brahman, aged 70 years Dev Kunwar @ Devmati, Wd/o Shanti, aged 40 years, Bhuneshwar S/o Shanti, aged.about 19 years, Both R/o Village Bagda, Tahsil Pratappur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.). Aageshwar, S/o Shiv Prasad, Caste Brahman, aged 50 years Keshavvati, W/o Aageshwar caste Brahman, aged 40 years Bhaneshwari, Wd/o Krishna caste Brahman, aged 50 years Lakeshwar, S/o Krishna, caste Brahman, aged 22 years Deepeshwar, S/o Krishna, caste Brahman, aged 14 years, Minor through natural guardian Mother No.5 Bhaneshwari Wd/o Krishna No. 1 & 3to7 are R/o Village Bagda, Tahsil Pratappur, DisttSarguja (C.G.). Bade Munni @ Shashilata W/o Gorelal, aged about 35 years, R/o / ^ (2) 737 Village Goverdhanpur, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) ^9. Kusumlata W/o Chhotelal.aged 32 years,R/o ViMage Goverdhanpur, . Tahsil Wadrafnagar, Distt. Sarguja<C.G.) /10. Guiya @ SitaW/o Sushil aged 30 years, R/o Village Maghla, Tahsil & Post Sonhat, Distt. Korea (C.G.) /11. Sona @ Gayatri W/o Jaikrishna, aged 28 years, R/o Village Barhole, P.S. Shrinagar, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) ^12. Lale @ Sangeeta W/o Shanker Prasad, aged 26 years, R/o Village Udari, Post Bartikala, Tahsil • wadrafnagar, Distt, Sarguja (C.G.) ,13. Pushpa Devi W/o Samlati, aged 45 years, Occupation House wife, A. Rajeshwar Tiwari S/o Late Samilati Tiwari, aged 27 years, B. Shailendra Tiwari S/o Late Samilati Tiwari, aged 23 Years, C. Ku. Seema Tiwari D/o Late Samilati Tiwari, aged 16 years, D. Ku. Kiran Tiwari, D/o Late Sahiilati Tiwari, aged 13 years, E. Ku. Radha Tiwari D/o Late Samilati Tiwari, aged 8 years, No. C to E are minors and through natural guardian mother No. 13 Pushpa Devi W/o Late Samilati Tiwari, all R/o Village Bagda, Tahsil Pratappur, Distf. Sarguja (C.G.). 13. F. Nisha Pandey W/o Ajay Pandey D/o Late Samilati Tiwari, aged 19 years, R/o Village Tivaragudi, Tahsil Surajpur Distt Sarguja (C.G.). r (3) ^t4. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Sarguja Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CQNSTITUJ1QN OF IN^DIA XI-HC-78 HTH(TT»>*11tb ^•^iraRpr, wTHtf'is, IqMiuy ^ .^..p.....^.^.'.2:.'?. W1[ 2006 an^r w R-fi* (CT 311^1 *xi+ 3TI^?Tiia«*>(l,cl(^lt«^I') ^dRR: (rfN'Sn^T 8.12.2006 Shri D.N.Praiapati. cbunsel for the petitioner. Heard on adniission.1 Bv wav of this writ Constitution of India, fhe order dated 20.3.2006, dismissed his appUcation of CivU Procedure. A perusal ofthe iinp 7.4.1978. said to have bed CHN1^41-1 ITffl^fr ^f^Q <I^ c;.K ^sif^iTsn^r petition, fited under Article 227 of petitioner has prayed for quashtae the oassed bv fhe Civil Judee Class-II, Pratanour. District-Saraui^. bv which. the leamed trial iudge has iled under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code lened order would show fhat bv the said aoTilication. fhe ulaiatiff ntaved for takiag on record a letter dated n written bv defendaat No.3 and also a certfficate ofthe Gram Panbhavat, dated 19.1.2001. The trial court has dismissed ftie appUcaltion on the e.round that fhe documents ffled alone wifh fhe apnlicaldon anpear to be suspicious. Leamed counsel fo^ the petitioner submits that the trial Court was not iustified ufa. takine such .view on fhe preUminaiy staee nffilino oftfae docuid below has completelv lost d C.P.C. which, the plaiuttff sues 01 sues upon ftie document o] or power in. support of his a Ust. and shaU produGe it| ent and bv takine such a view. the Court ight offhe |?Tovisrons ofOrder 7, Rule 14 Order 7, Rule 14 rel^tes to the provision ofthe docuinents oa reUes. It Drovidesthat where the plaintifF I- relies upon docuinent in his possession claim. he shaU enter such docuinents in in Court when the olaint is presented by P.T.O. ;Se^. •fS^f.'-^S!K^.^W&^^^^^l:^^^^^^^^S^3!S^^^S^3^S^^Sea^^^ W ^*ls sn^rw R-iich <TSiTT3n^Ts^*lict3 *11*1MTai^T<:h 3^'^(pn?PT, siTn«'ls,Rl<ll«y ^if, €,s-^.'g Wj; 200 6 3TI^?T'T3^'(tjP^^EC) waRfCHfersn^r 2- oftbe td) him aad shall, at the same fhereof, to be filed with the Sub rule (21 nrovides the possession or power state iu whose posscssion 01 Fzirther, sub rule (3) be produced in Court bv fh< or to be entered ia the list is not produced or enteied of the Court, be received ia fhe suit Sub rule (4) providesl which savs that aofhine fa produced for fhe cross-i hauded over to a witness A bare perusal of fhj trvuie a suit is alwavs appropriate cases to produi); such an exieencv arises. bu|t adnuttma the document aeniiineness ofthe docuineAt document^filed ia a suit by 1| at a later staee, is a matter or more later at the time to be passed on the same. Olll =ni<<[<1'41-< iwciTft'teA'iRl+dK ^STRpTSn^T Itime deUver the document and a coov tflaint. Ihat where anv such document is not in plaintiff, he shaU, wherever possible, power it is. rirovidesthat a document which oueht to plaintifFwhen fhe plaint is nresented. be added or armexed to the plamt but tccordiaelv, shaU not, without fhe leave ividence on his behatf at the hearing of fov a staae ih the cross-examinafion^ fhis rule shaB applv to document aifaiaation of fhe' plainttffs witnesses. or, to reircsh his memorv. ts pi-ovision would show that a Court to cratit a leave to fhe plauitiff in <;e his docuinent at a later staee when jt it nowherc provide that at the tune of record, fhe Coiirt will look into the The correctness or aenuineness ofa Ijhe plauitifFeifher at the earlier stage or to be considered at the tuae of evidence ofl ludeineiit. when au order/iudement is Ul -exaituxial m^relv eiapolwered P.T.O. 5SSBiSBSB?Wa"« l >!H t AIUSUU CUB-LWUUBS^^@^5^®Si'^^^^;:?s:MBl^^3^MV^-:^"I^-^-J~--^ -Sl?^ XI-HC-78 *11*1<^l St»*1|c»> S^'^nq-i^q-^ »Tflwi6,faciidy . l^~-p, ^^-<? v^ zoo 4 3TT^?Tiw ('ic<t^°l<^T) an^T^rf^-iNi (W 3TI^T Sfli'sh ..tu^b^ ^ J^ R<iraTHlN'3TI^T 3- Bv takiue a view abou1 the Drelimiaarv staae ofits accordaace with law. The mnln; In the result, fhe petitiob The uupueiied order directed to be takea on passed ex-carte. it would be order on the appropriate This oetition staads Certi&ed copv as per rule fillin mnliugned recotd eroufads disbosed ct>i*ii^i^ wT^fy ^'^^ <T^i+<,i< ^STRpTsn^T fhe genuiaeness of a document on lins. tfae trial Court has not acted in order deserves to be quashed. is atlowed. is set aside. The documents are Siace the present order is beiae ooen to fhe other side to assaU this before fhis Court. o£ -—- s. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge P.T.O. _J" V^fS'SSSBSSSSS^SS. TfE