(1) IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (Art. 227) N0. ^01 9 of2009 PETITIONER Plaintiff ( 1-C) VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1. Defendants 2. ..-' 3. \^..^y\.- ^^^^">""" ..^..5:!^--""" 4- ^^y^ Plaintiffs 5. (a) o' Defendant ^•' 6. Gulab Singh S/o Late Shiv Pratap Singh, aged about 55 years, R/o Pratappur, Tahsil Pratappur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) Shakuntala Singh, W/o Narendra Singh, aged about 36 years, Narendra Singh, S/o Bhagwati Singh, Aged about 40 years, Mahendra Singh, S/o Bhagwati Singh, aged about 25 years, Bhagwati Singh S/o Late Laxminarayan Singh, aged about 60 years, All above are R/o Village Gonda, P.S. & Tahsil Pratappur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Prabhawati W/o Kanshi Singh aged about 62 years (Since dead) Bharat Singh S/o Mohan Sharan Singh, aged about 38 years, Village Gonda, Police Station 85 Tahsil Pratappur, Distt. Surguja Kamleshwar Singh S/o Mohan Sharan Singh, aged about 33 years, R/o Village Gonda, Police Station & Tahsil Pratappur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Surguja (C.G.) (2) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WHdl 'BhNlch ?^T r^i^icn^/ ^Til<4^i<o, f®i<ni^^< ^a-.^.,.^7^..^..':..2,oi9l0^-^200 3T(^T^[^ (<l?^<BI<i?) ^i^i^r'R^w W^ ^H^T sD*ii<») ^ l^iw^fer^i^r 1WE!feF'fr;T 'STO^if "^ fe^ <i^^K ^3tRP:r3TT^T N.K.A' S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice 20.07.2009 Shri DN Prajapati, Advocat) Shri BP Gupta, Advocate fcj aarwal a for the petitioner. rthe respondent No. 5(a) & (b). Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. A(fvocate for the State. With the consent of the patties, the matter is heard finally at motion stage. The instant petition is d|-ected against the order dated 01.04.2009 (Annexure P/1), ps|ssed by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Pratappur, Distt. S|urguja, in civil appeal No. 6A/07, whereby and whereunder the (\ Shri Prajapati, counsel for t| ertified copy of Bakhshishnama dated 18.05.1987, which was fil^d by the respondent No. 5 (a) & (b), was taken on record for limite|d purpose of enquiry under Order 22Rule5ofCPC. ie petitioner submits that the said Bakhshishnama is fake, forged ^nd fabricated, and as such, the same cannot be taken on record|for the purpose of enquiry under Order22Rule5ofCPC. Per contra, Shri Gupta, co ^nsel for the respondent No. 5(a) & (b) submits that the said docunjient is necessary for the purpose of enquiry under Order 22 Rule taken on record by the trial court. 5 of CPC, and has rightly been ^si^^ ^Nk ^^n^r<r^-ri^N—s;s/95—11 /2008—i,00,000. >>^ ^ 1 '^ ^ ^^'./ 3?l^l ^51 l^iNr ^JT ^S^ ^^i<ft Rfc. Sahu WRyil fl»*lich ^^Ef ^||^M<q, ^TTl^Ko, [^<ni<-l^< ...^.^,..^.\^....^... "'^-/•^••-••••"•^IOO ^[^ TR^ (<i?tiq^?) ii^liW ^ft^ ^i^T After having heard the parti record, I am of the considered committed any irregularity or ille^jality to the petitioner inasmuch as the| the trial court for the limited pu| Rule 5 of CPC, and the petiti^ner leading evidence in this rega| witnesses, whicti may be produc|ed (b). If the document taken by then the court will certainly law after recording the evidence i|' With the aforesaid observslti ies, and after having perused the 4pinion that the trial court has not Tie recorld of. No order asto costs. ^l^id^N ^H<riT ^ tt^ TJN^R '^'^tRww^r liality, leading to manifest injustice |document was taken on record by 1-pose of enquiry under Order 22 is at liberty to establish by |d and by cross-examining the by the respondent No. 5 (a) & trial court is fake and forged, the findings in accordance with |i this regard. tion, this petition stands disposed Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^W^^^ i^U^ <Ti[-Tf^}N—FS/95—11 /2003-1,00,000.