.^C;*G^-;,. PETITIONER/: (PlaintifO HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art. 2271 No.6834 of 2010 Gopal S/o Late Bandhuram, aged about 57 years, caste Kenwat, Occupation Agricultural R/o Village Sonhat, P.S. & Tahsil Sonhat, Distt. Koria (C.G.) RESPONDENTS/: (Defendants) Versus 1. Basantlal S/o Late Bandhuram, aged about 44 years, caste Kenwat, Occupation Service (Process server) District & Session Judge Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria (C.G.) 2. Smt. Lalli, W/o Late Kisunram, aged 52 years, Occupation Agricultural, R/o Village Bhaiyathan, P.S. Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) 3. Smt. Kamla W/o Laxman Prasad, aged about 50 years, Occupation Agricultural, R/o Village Sonhat, P.S. & Tahsil Sonhat, Distt. Koria (C.G.) 4. Smt. Lal Bai W/o Kamla Prasad, aged about 46 years, Occupation Agriucltural, R/o Village (Tulsipara), Nagpur, Police Chowki Nagpur, Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt. Koria (C.G.) 5. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Baikunthpur, Distt. Koria (C.G.) {Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India} Present: Mr. D.N. Prajapati, counsel forthe petitioner. Mr. S.C. Verma, counsel for respondents No.1, 2 & 4. , Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.5. Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (22-7-2011) 1. Heard on I.A.No.2 for taking additional documents viz., photocopy of alleged family arrangement letter, on record. 2. On due consideration, I.A.No.2 is allowed. Documents are taken on record. 3. Heard on admission. 4. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety ofthe order dated 19-10-2010 passed by /:>!^ "\ ^' ^;-,,;;?^^^^.. '',[¥^ Soma , the 2nd Civil Judge Class-1, Baikunthpur in Civit Suit No.28A/2006 rejecting the application for taking secondary evidence in terms of Section 65 of the Evidence Act on the ground that the petitioner herein has not filed original documents or copy of any public document. While rejecting the said application the Court below has also held that the alleged family arrangement letter was required to be registered and the same unregistered document. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid family arrangement letter is necessary to prove the status of the parties and, therefore, the Court ought to have allowed the application, but the Court below has illegally dismissed the application. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Nawab Singh v. Inderjit Kaur (AIR 1999 SC 1668)in which the Supreme Court has permitted to lead secondary evidence relating to rent note. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Rajesh Kumar Bhati v. Additional District Judge, Jodhpur & Ors. (AIR 2009 Rajasthan 137) in which while placing reliance in Nawab Singh's case (supra), the Rajasthan High Court has permitted the parties to lead secondary evidence relating to copyofwilldeed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1, 2 & 4 opposes the petition and submits that virtually, the alleged document i.e. the family arrangement letter is not a temporary document, but is a deed of partition which requires registration, and same is an unregistered document. Copy of unregistered document is not admissible in evidence. Therefore, the Court below has rightly rejected the application. 7. In Nawab Singh's case (supra), the Supreme Court has permitted for secondary evidence relating to rent note which does not require registration. In Rajesh Kumar's case (supra), the Rajasthan High Court has permitted to lead secondary evidence relating to copy of will deed which also does not require registration. 8. In the present case, alleged photocopies of the documents clearly reveal that all the parties have partitioned their property before the villagers on the date of execution of said document i.e. on 18-4-2006 which shows that this is not a family arrangement letter or memorandum of partition, but is a partition deed which should be compulsorily registered. In absence of such registration, the said document is not admissible in evidence and the Court below has rightly rejected the application. 1 do not find any interference in the order impugned in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge