IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) NOA?^ OF 2009 SJnale B® PETITIONER ^ ^ s^ gs.w .*e: ^""IAW''"' ,.- Kalpnath S/o Mata Prasad , aged about 50 years, R/o Village Pendra, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur C.G. PIaintiff ..^•0^ ^-' .&•..---"^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Anil Kumar Bind S/o Rajendra Prasad Bind, aged about 28 years, Defendant No. 1 2. Rajendra Prasad ^sBind S/o Jaikaran Bind, aged about 53 years, Defendant No. 2 Both are R/o Village Lohtariyapara, Pendra, Tahsil Pendra Road, District BilaspurC.G. WRIT PETITIONJJNDER ARTICLE 227 OF TME CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ;i • :;;\ Bt XI-HC—78 ST'^Ti'^1 T^T-i; TI^T 3ii^?( ww 75Ef ^IPTCOT, ^Ttly'iti, T ^ 1!3\ ^RiTWgfet •31'lw ^BIS ft';f fIB?ff •? fs'31 TfeRR ^? sffgq as^, S.B. Hon'bleShri Justice N.K. Aaarwal 27.08.2009 1 Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Advocqte for the petitioner. Heard on admission. The instant petition is dik'ected against the order dated 11.05.2009 (Annexure P/1) pas^ed by the Givil Judge, Class II, Pendraroad, in civil suit No. 186J-A/2007, whereby the application flted by the petitioner under Orcfer 7 Rule 14 of CPC for taking documents on record was rejectejj by the trialcourt,and also order dated 28.07.2009 (Annexure Pl2), passed by the Civll Judge, Class II, Pendraroad, in civil suitjNo. 186/2007, whereby the same application again prefen-ed by th^ petitioner under Order 7 Rute 14 of CPC with another application ijnder Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC were rejected. j ! The brief facts of the caie are that, the plaintiff/petitioner instituted a suit for injunction agpinst the defendants respondents herein seeking relief that the j defendants be restrained from interfering in peaceful possessio^ of the petitioner, as well as in the construction work being carried out by the petitioner. The 1 respondents herein filed their written statement. Thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence and |the plaintifffiled his affidavit under Order 18 of CPC. At this stagej the petitioner filed an application 'XI-HC—78 -^Sf ^VVmv,, •MW\^,J3^^^. ^^.!W.SM^ »(R^IaRT feW misnSng^HT TRiTWHfe; 3W<I ^Biafa^N-WTaf ^-fs^t •^sif'R31R?i under 7 Rule 14 of CPC for taki|ig agreement dated 08.07.1972 (Annexure P/6) on record, executed between two third parties. The trial court, by order (<ated 11.05.2009, dismissed the application on the ground that the|plaintiff himself admitted that the document is not relating to suit lar^d also failed to point out that this document is relevant to the facts c|f present case. Again the petitioner preferj'ed the same application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC to file th^ same document on record. The petitioner also filed an applicatlon|under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC for additional pleadings in the plaint. IThe trial court, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 28.D7.2009 again dismissed the application and last opportunity Iwas granted to the petitioner to present his witnesses for cross examination by other party. 1 Dr. Pandey, by referring tl^e map annexed with the pliant, would submit that the document lin question was relevant for the purpose of just decision of the suit; therefore the same may be allowed and taken on record. I After hearing the counsel iappearing for the petitioner and after going though the record, 1 am of the considered opinion that while passing the said order, the frial court has not committed any 1 ~^»~S»sSlf-HC—1S sn^T'sri f^t^; 'F'qiS'S 'S^f '^WMt1,, ^'W'c, 'feW^: ^ snsv 'T^? ('^?r?w^) —j- ronw^fesfi^! r^ "sn^i? "^ t^;:€TTf^^? ^ i'iftpT 31'tW illegality or perversity ^o asto invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Ajrticle 227 of the Constitution of India. | It is well settled principle ofjlaw that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under j^rticle 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from intprfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such <j;ases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional erroriiswrit large on the face of the record, which is not in the presentjcase. The petition has no merit ^nd is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge