31^¥I^T^J^ 'WT ^ii^i ^^{^ a^l^ WNdlWW^ T^'^Tpn^pT, ^Til^4i(o/[®i<yii^^< ^ . ^.C-2^-7) HO. ^.^2^/0<g "-^ 200 ^n^T'q^r^c^f^^) ^^TW^ft^^T^T PETrTIONER PLAINTSFF D.P. S/o lati ofMIG' Chovvk, Ve^ma, Versus RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS 1. Sevals } son of Bhawailipur IfCG) aged about 74 years, Shri J.R Verma, residcnt '/23 Nutaii Enclave, Nutan Sarkaada, Bilaspur (CG) <aui, aged about 55 years, Shri Dhaniram, rcsidcnt of Tali. Palari, Distt. Raipur 2. Jhabbu|lal of Stnn Arang, 3. State CollectQrate O KA S/ Advoclate Dhirendra Mishra, J. Sliri S.C. Verma, Sl-iri Armi Sao, Dy. MVO( respondent No. 3. This petition is du'ecte4 passed by 1st Civil Judge, whereby tlie application of 12 of the C.RQ for produ^tion retected. '^Rf?T?ft?T "^TWff "^ fe^ <M'^S< ^T 3>tf^H 3?T^T 7 Jhabbu|lal, aged about 45 years, son /slaram, resident of C^iikhli, pistt. Raipur ('CG) |of Clihattisgarh, through Raipur [CG) WRIT PETIT2QN UNDER ARTtCLE »227OF THE CONSTSTUTIQN 0PIPWA O RDER 5-2008 ;, tor me petitioner. ^.dvocate General, for the State/ against the order of 2^nnexure P-1 Class li, Raipm- dated 7-4-2008 Ijlie petitioner under Order XI Rule of the agreement, has been ^T^7T ^^ H^ll^, ^^RT^TR —FS/197—3/2008 —40,000. <^> T^ ^I^Krt^, yTl1-H41(o, f®|(ni-!H^< ^.^, C-z-^ ^6- :z'7>- WWITWW^ , •Z'i/Q g •^ 200 • ^T^T ^^r (^?^^) ^¥r^T^NT WT^i^T^'^t^ ^ (} l^nw^ft^sn^i ujiipu^ 12|1 From perusal of the ujiip photocopy of the document iiji 'The petitioner/plaintiff clainiijtis beeu taken by the prayed the Court below for| produce the document and obsei-vation that the defendarl aiid m theu' written statemeilit, existence ot any sucli clocuiii^nt their signatures were obtaine< are not in possesslon ol Uie suit has been filed by the the document and the the document. In the considered illegality or inllrmity committ^d the impugned order. The petition is disniisse4 respondents/ defendants defendfent opu^ion ^pqf^N 'RTR^Jf ^f 1^^ ll^^R ^ 3?f^? 3T8^T yied order, it appeai's that question is available on record. tliat me onginal docunient tias on 31-7-1999, dtrection to the defendaiits to jthe same was rejecteci with au ^ts have replied to me application iiiei|it, they have categorically denied and have taken a defence fhat <1 in blaiik staiiip paper aiid they jalleged agi'eement and since me pia^ntiff therefore, he should produce camiot be directed to produce of tliis Court, there is no by the Court below iii passiiig summarily, Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge JS^ ^W^T ?M^T H^ll^, <Wi^tH —FS/197—3/2008 —40,000. I-