SiICT ??I WIR? gan 3iKw g?!iR? ~3^ -^ww^, OTD'y'itS, Rrtiyy .W..&..^)...^...S.t.t../ <*l--lf<-f<il-f 'WRft'^fe^ <fa't$K ^; •3i3a*i sn^w PETITIONERS/: (Plainfiffe) 11. -Ve RESPONDENT/: (Defendant) (Writ Petition under Sinale Bench: Won'ble Mr. Justice L.CLBhadoo 3-1-2(»8:- Mr. Neeraj Choubey, cc Constitution of India, quesfor 20.11.2007 passed bythe 1a have heard leamed impugned order. Leamed trial Court has 2. Basant Kumar, S/o Lacchiram Yadav, Aged about 45 years, R/o Bhogapara, Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Navagarh, Dfstrict Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) PankajKumar, S/o Jagmohan Das Doshi, Aged about 48 years, FVo Ward No.2 Akaltara, Tahsil Janjgir, Disfrict Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) rsus- Chintamani, S/o Khemraj, Aged about 40 years, R/o Bhogaha Para, Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Navagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Article 227 of the Constitution of India) unsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have pr^ferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the jng legality and correctness of the order dated Civil Judge, Class-1, Janjgir, whereby learned Civil Judge has rejected the p^ayer of the petitioners herein for allowing them to produce the original docunr|ent sale deed, copy whereof was already filed atthe time offlling ofthe suit. counsel for the petitioners & perused the mentioned that as the appellate Court in order dated 27 August, 2007 allowjsd the appeal and restored the dvil suit on the condiUon that the ptaintiffs sh^ll not be allowed to file any further document. -yg31 ^rPTR!^, SrftWi^, fatc'>l^y BR?I ?il T<-)T» ^SdSH^iyfe chlflicf'fl-f tlW<rt( ^.fest lRtt$K •2-- Therefore, even if copies of th^ sale deeds were produced by tfie plaintWfe atong with the plaint that does r^ot entitle the plaintiffe to file originat sate deed on account of the order passed |»ythe appellate Court. It is admitted position that while allowing the appeal 4 suit, which was dismissed in cfletault, the appellate Court passed the order that the plajntiffe shall not be positfon ttiat at the time of filing were filed by the plaintiffe alo(ig witti the plaint. Now they wanted to file original sale deed in order to p|rove transfer of house in their favour by the or®inalancflord, which has beert Leamed counsel for the ^ chfll suit, fhe original sale deeds| the same were filed. Order VII | short "the Code") envisages tha( required to fite documents in hi{ documents. However, sub-rute that with the leave of the Court t| time <rf hearing ofthe suit. It is admitted position th) already filed by the plaintifls an^ suit, in order to decide the suit exerdsed the jurisdiction by allo' genuineness of the documents the petitionere herein for restoration of civil ntiUed to ffle fte same. It is also admitted if civil suit photocopies of original sate deeds rejected by the appellate Court. etitioners submits that at the time of filing of were not traceabte, therefore, photocopies of Rute 14of the Code crf Civil Procedure (for at the time of fifing of the suit the plaintiff fe possession or power along with the list of [3) of Rule 14 of the Code further envisages ie ptaintiff is entitled to file documente at the it photocopies of originat sale deects were they wanted to file original ctocuments i.e. the sale deeds, vrfiich are said Vp be not traceable at the time of flting oS the t>n merit. Leamed trial Court ought to have ij/ing the petitioners herein to fite original sate deeds being registered documenjte, as there was no question of doubting the in question. The procedural law has been °"^^ lxi-H^- -'^5^^ ?ij S*;ESI ?:i'R'nq? Bq1f3iKWg)flR> c 3^ -^M\<W, <<>Tfly'16, Rl<?'>l'My sn^r ^HW (<^tt-^<8f: TOiwsftasn^T -3' *wi<ri'lil-< tinai ^ft^t ^N<g< enacted in order to further the cjause ofjustice and not to scuttle the course of justice. In view ofthe above, 1 a|n ofthe opinion that the trial Court has faited to exercise thejurisdiction whicyi was vesting with it, the order passed by the trial Court is wholly perverse, |not exercising the jurisdiction vested in that Court. Leamed appellate Couft while passing Uie order dated 27^ August, 2007 allowing the appeal and |restoring the civil suit filed by the petitioners herein, was not w'thin its right t^ order that the petitionere shall not be allowed to produce any document. In tt|e ordinary course before allowing this petition it was appropriate to issue n<ttice to the respondent, but as the order in question is wholly perverse and| issuance of notice to the respondent is going to delay the proceedings of the justice, 1 am of the opinion that to the nature ofthe case, is unn suit and that would amount to miscarriage of issuance of notice to the respondent, looking scessary, as such, 1 am not directing issuance of notice to the respondent. H^wever, still if the respondent feels aggneved by this order, he will be at liber^ to move an application before this Court for modificatfon of this order. In the result, the writ pe^tion deserves to be allowed at the admission stage itself and the same is £(ccordingly, allowed. Impugned order dated 20-11-2007 is quashed. The tri^l Court is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in resp^ct of the application ffled by the petftioners underOrder VII Rule 14 (3)oftl1eCode. _ Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge