IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH X / W.P.NO./46Z /2003 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 0F CONSTITUTION OF INDIA c^' PETITIONERS^ M/s. Khandelwal Dal Mill Dhamdha Road, Childiali, Distt. Durg Registered Partnership firm Through Partners 1. Kishan Khandelwal, aged 50 years 2. Siya Ram Khandelwal, aged 48 years Both Sons ofShri Ramdhan Khandelwal, R/o.infi-ont ofPunjab National Banl(, Station Road Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT /<Babiilal Lunawat, aged about 78 years S/o. Late Moti Lal Lunawat Tax consultant, R/o. StationRoad Durg(C.G.) 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS :-22 0'^ ^iPTRPT, 0Ti|y<ie, faidi.My A% t-^ 31^1^ TC:iN'3i1^?i .ta?..f...ft<6.'....l-l.t">./.ft: 3Tl^[^?TW:^[ft7t ••Wfe!^Tfp^V ^ -fe^ ipsi^K i?3iPgn 3Ti^i 26.03.2004 | Sait Sudha Ayxswsl, coiinsejl for the petiti&ncr. The petitioaer has prefened jfhfe writ petition under Articfe 227 of fhe Coiffititutton of India b^ng a^rieved by fhe order-datcd 05.12.2002 passed by the fcamed|6dl Additional District Jadge, Dvzy, whereby tfae applfcation of the pet|tioner hetcia for prodiiction <rf thc documents was rejected. | Brtef facts teading to filmg| of fhis writ petition are that fhe respondent herein, who is a prac^ticing lawyer oa Incomc-tax side, fited a civfl suit ^ainst fhe ^etitioncr hereia for recoveiy of Rs. 11,83,200/-. In Pazagtaph 2 ^f thc plaint it has been infintioned that fiToni time to tiine sincc 1987-$8 fhe respondent heBcia deposited fhe anaount in the pcti.tioner's fir^i ^ainst fhe iaterest @ 12% per anmim and aU that amount was 4cposited (teoi^h c&equcs. It has been further incationed fhat wliatever amaunti^ repaul by the present petitioner was also fhrouyi cheques and ultiinatety it hae been mentioned fhat Rs.8,87,000^- are due against flae petitkMicr as principal amoiint and Rs.3,13,200p/- are due towards fhc m.terest. Written statement oa befaal^ of fhe petitioner hereiu has been fited. However, an appUcation was jSIed by (he petiffoner herein befoBe (he trial Court seeldng direction ^gaiust the respondent larcin to iBapugncd order dated (».12.2002 produce his iacoiac-tax retum, a^couat of interest recehed by hua aad fhe balance Aeet for fhe perijxl rangu^; bctween 01.04.1988 to 31.3.2001, but the same was ^ejccted by fhe trid Conrt vidc hoMit^ fhat fhese dociuncats are XI-HC-22 ^5[ ^HM^, ^W\^, hwv^. \0' "'•'"^^ .M.'p?./?.: ^OTraT"""""""""l"""""""""^R °bl«lii'l41-|tTTq?fi'q'fS1^<TS\^,I'' ^; siSOTsn^l not necessaiy for fhe dteposal <^f fhe suit, therefore, fhe plaiatiff cannot be direeted to produce the^e dociunents. I hawe heard tearaed couascjt for fhe petitioner. Leamed coxmsel for the petplooer submits that fhe tnal Court has decided fhe appUcatun wifho|ut giwing opportuuHy of beassa% to fhe pctitfoner and niorccwer, doc'u^nents filed in support ofthe plaiat by the respondent are haadwritteBJ and fliey are not ia yoper fonn. As far as fhe question of pcgalily ia ttie napugned oitler is concemed; as inentioned abcwe, iSfe respondent haTein fited a sult for recoveiy of fhc princq)al amount s|nd iaterest fhcieon and it has beea mentioned that aU the amouat ijras advanced by way of cheques, fhus, the suit is based on fhe cl^equcs given by flie ^riaintfff to fhe present petitioiter; fherefore, I am| of fhe opuuon that fhe trial Court has not committed aay iUcgaBly) or irtcgularity while rejectmg the appltcation offhe petitioner Iieicinj for producing fhe docuincats. In vicw of fhe above, I do i^ot fixid aay substance ia ttus writ petition, which is liabte to be dismjissed and is diantesed. Howcver, in view of fhe su^mtesion made by leamed counsel for the petitiMier tbat without pspng any opportum.ly of hcariag thc trial Court has rejccted the a^plicatfon fOcd for pioduction of dociuncnts; it is cxpected fhat in jBiture before pasasny any ordcr tiie trial Coiurt wffl givc proper opporti^aily ofhearing to thje pclitiDner. Wifh thc aforesaid diiectfon, Certified copy as per Rutes. fhe pedtfon slands disposcd. ^'J. /, S6F L.C. Bhadoo Judge [Tfr^'^f^