IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P. No. S6 5 [29% Itwara Bai ‘W/o Late Jageshwar Singh Aged about 3O years P6titioners Ku. Purnirna D/ o Late Jageshwar Singh Aged abcut 1 1 years Ku.Suniya D/o Lat6 Jagéshwar Singh Aged about 9 years $urya Prakash S/o Late Jageshwar Singh Aged about 7 years Chandra Prakash S/ o Late Jageshwar Singh Aged about 4 years Om Prakash S/ o Late Jageshwar Singh Aged about 2 years Petitioner No.1 is the guardian (mother) of Petitioner D/o Gaj Moh‘an Singh Aged about 17 years No.2 to 6 Kumwr‘: M - \\e\ Raj Kama WP (3) United Insurance Company Ltd:, Through Through - Branch Insurance Rajendra Nagar Chawk, Bilaspur. Branch Manager, T.P.Nagar. Korba, United Ltd., Managgr, Company WRIT PETITION UNDER SECTION 527i)? THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA m m ( W u ) h Wwm mm wmr£ $Wm S.B. Hon’ble Shri Justice N.K Agrwal 21.08.2009 Shri NP Chandravanshi with Smt. Bhagwati Kashyah, Advocates for the petitioners. Shri Pradeep SaXena; Advocate, appears on behalf of Shri DashrathGupta, Advocate for ondent No. 3. The instant petition is d rected against the part of the order dated 9.10.2006, passed by dditional Motor Accident Claims TribimaLBilaspur (for short ‘ ribunal’), in claim case No. 87/05, whereby and whereunder the a V lication preferred by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) rea with Section 151 of CPC for taking document on record has been di missed. The brief facts of the e e are that, claim case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is pendin consideration before the trial court. At the time of evidence, during cross examination of one Seva Ram (AW/3), Clerk of SECL, the pe 'tioner filed an application for taking document on record. The trial court dismisse the application on the ground that the document, which is sought o be taken on record, is a document prescribing salary on a date w 'ich is subsequent date of accident, therefore not relevant for the purpose of deciding the case, and dismissed the application. r ‘ p mm Héoo. ¥ . mm (Wu) Z WWW ' ’ - mmw¥wm $mm . I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. I'n {he ‘conSidered op _n of this court, no illegality or irregularity has been committ .by the court below so as to invoke extra ordinary‘jurisdiction of his court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled ‘principl of law that this €ourt, in exercise of its supervisory jui‘isdiction un r Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should reh‘ain itself h interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in su h cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional V r is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. The petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No ‘ order asto costs. \V,,Sahu Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge enemy. new M — v i. i ' e o o