HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (U/A 227) No. 7342/2011 PETITIONBR Defesidant no, 1 RBSPONDBNTS Non-apDlicants VBRSUS 1] 2] 3] RamKrishan S/o Madhavshran Tiwari, Aged about 50 years, R/o ViUage Mitfhumiuda, Raigarh Tahsil 8& District Raigarh (C.G.). Sint Arabika Devi W/o Purshottaia Singh, Aged about 70 years, R/o VUlage Mitthumuda^ (Behind Jute miU Police Choki) Raigarh TahsU & Distdct Raigarh (C.G.). (Pl^ntiff) Saajay Singh S/o Late Sevak Siagh Rajpoot Aged about 38 years, VUlage Mitthusiuda, Raigarh TahsU & District Raigarh (C.G.). (Res. no. 2 a). Siat. Rukinani Wd/o Late Sevak Siiigh Rajpoot Aged about 54 years, VlUage Mitthuinuda, Raigarh Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.). (Res. ao. 2 b). WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLB 227 OF THE CON8TITUTION OP INDIA. (SB :Hon»bleMr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Maaoj Paraiijpe, Advocate with ShriVikram Dixit, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondents not noticed, OHDBR (Passedoa 05/12/2011) 1. By this petition under Article 227 of fhe Constitution of India petitioner has challenged fhe legalily and propriely of the ox-der dated 15/11/2011 passed by 2nd CivU Judge Class-2, Raigarh (C,G.) in civil suit No, 55A/2011 whereby objection relatmg to production of fhe docunient at the tmie of cross examiaation of fhe party i.e. defendaat witoaesses has been rejected by the Court below on fhe ground fhat plauitfcff is entitied to produce the docuinents at the tune ofcross examiaation ia terms of Order 7 Rule 14(4) ofthe CivU Procedure Code, 1908 (in short 'the Code'). ••Y^ -^- Shri Maaoj Paraiype, Advocate with Shn Vikram DMt, Advocate for fhe petitioner is heard. Order impugned perused. AppUcation Order 7 Rule 14(4) of the Code is restoricted of tlie plamtifFs witaesses but in accordance with sub-rale 3 of Rule 1 of Order 13 of the Code aiiy party inay produce docunients for fhe cross examiaation of the witaesses of ttie other party, sub-rule 3 of Rule 1 of Order 13 of the Code reads as foUows:- {1. Origincd docuinents to fee produced at or be/ore the settlenwnt ofissuess' (1)- (2) - (3) Nathing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documenfe- (a) produced for the cross'exanunation of the witnesses ofthe otherparty; or (b) handed over to a wiineas merely to refresh his memory] In the Ught ofsub-mle 3 ofRule 1 ofOider 13 oftlie Code, I do not fiad any illegaMty in the order impugned requlrmg aay iaterfereiice ia exercise of supervisoxy jurisdiction. Consequently, petition is liable to be disxnissed and is hereby disniissed at fhe stage of adinission itself. No order as to costs, 5. I.A. No, 1 is also disinissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge r^