BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITIONmzmNo. \UN3 /2011 FI—d Respondents No. 2 85 3 both are S/o Late Shri Prabhulal Agrawal. A11 are residents of Budhapara, Raipur, Tahsil 85 District — Raipur .(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER AR CONSTITUTION TICLE 227 OF THE OF INDIA PETIT /Ashok Kumar Jain, DEFE§%§%1¥ S/o Shri Champalal Jain, A ed about 50 years, R/o Sunil “Cg QOQ “ \\ Tgxtiles, Infront of Dr. Sandeep Dave Hospital, Budhapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). w V ............... VERSUS RESPO PLAINTIFFQ‘ENTS: / 1. ’Smt. Kanta Bai Agrawal, W/o Late Shri ~ Prabhulal Agrawal, Aged about 75 years 2. ( Nitesh Agrawal, Aged about 34 years Abhishek Agrawal, Aged about 32 'years. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITEON €227) NO. 1443 DF 2011 PETmONER! : Ashok Kumar Jain WRW PE’HTION UNDER ART‘CLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF lNDlA (Sinqie Bench: Hon'bia $hri MK. Aqarwal, J.) Present : Shri Goutam Bhaduri, counseiforthe petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 16‘” day of March, 2011) Heard. 2. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of tndia cans in question the iegaiity and propriety of the order dated 14-01-2011 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class-I, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 6-A/2007. 3. The facts of the case in brief are as under: The respondents/plaintiffs instituted a suit for evtction of the petitioner under the provision contained in Section i2(i)(f) of the CG. Accommodation Control Act. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner herein in order to lead eecondary evidence fiied a photo copy of agreement showing one other shop hee been let out by the plaintiffs to one Rajesh Dubey along with appiication under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The petitioner moved another application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 39(7) and Section 151 of CPC for spot inspection of the suit shop, 4. Vide impugned order the above applications were dismissed by the Trial Court. lf" waendam; F *\ Versus RESPONDENT3 : Smt. Kanta Bai Agrawal and PLAINTIFFs others. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the order impugned, i do not find any substance in the petition. The fact which the petitioner wants to estabiish by leading secondary evidence has aiready been admitted by the plaintiffs and, therefore, there is no need to iead secondary evidence. Further, the fact whether or not the petitioner had altered the suit shop substantially and materially to the detriment of the ptaintlffs’ interest is for the plaintiffs to prove and the learned Court below has not committed any iliegality or material irregularity in dismissing the appiications on above grounds, warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of indie, 6. lt is welt settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, shouid retrain itself from interfering with the order passed by thetCourt below, except in such cases where perversity, iliegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. 7. Accordingiy, the petition being devoid of substance is liable ”/1 to be'and is hereby dismissed. Sdl— rm. Ag‘awa‘ Jndge Kvr