Hm?! COURT GF CHHATTISG Ri’E: EILA3PUR Writ Petition Q’C) No. 2553 Of 2QG? Fetitgsner Smt‘ Renuka Shukia, Wm. Shri Nomapwitant Neiesh Shuk!a, aged 33 yeaw. rio. Tikarapaz’a, Ramdas Nagaf, D%st. Biiaspur, CG. Versus Respondent Neiash Kumar Shukia, s/o. S‘mi C.L. Shuk!a, aged 35 years, m3. QNO. 18:6, $treet 110.32, Eectar n04, Bhi!ai Nagar, gistrict Dwg, CG. Appikané {Wx’ii Petition under Artib§e 227 cf ihe Consiituticn O'E india) s8: Hon’hie ShrE Justice Satish K. Agmhotri “Wesem: Shri Anurag Bayai, ceunsei fm’ the pe‘t§*‘zioner C3RAL GREEK (Passed on 25‘“ Agra, 209?; By this petiiion fiied under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndiaj ihe petitioner questions the §egai§ty and Vaiidi‘ty of i‘ne order daied 28-2- 20G7 (Annexure PM), wherem the iind Addiiimw Princ§pai Judge, FamHy CourL Burg, has aiiowed the appiication of the respondent in prociuce the documents‘ 2) The facts, in Nuisheii, are that ‘ihe respondent f“iled aii apgiicaiion under Section 13 (1) (1 A) ef the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for divorce or! ihe ground of meme? crueity. Arter recording and crasrng i‘r‘re evidence or “the appricant rhe responderrt fried an ap§3§§caiion under Order T Ruie 14(3) of the Code cf C§Vi§ Procedure (for short, “the Code”) to produce a document nameiy suioteai note dated 31—5-2002. The teamed Judge, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the appiication vide order ciated 9-1—2006 (Annexure P/2}. 3. Being aggrieved, the petmon being Wrii Petition No.183612966 was flied in this Court. This Court vide order dated 3G-4-200$ passed in Writ Petition No.1836/ZGO6 dismissed the petition as withdrawn, reserving iiberty to rhe respondent ta take appropriaie iegai sieps before the Famiiy Court iiseif, if he is so advised. The respondent again moved an apeiioaiion unciei‘ Order 7 Ruie 14 (:3) of the Code aiong wiii'i documenii.e., perpetuai saicidai note dated 33-5-2002. .Jg 4. Learned Juege, after hearing min the pariies, came io the cenciusion as under: U 9m‘m“m warneeaaerémmmamrwreiamcrwwaaf wwmrmwmmeawefmme%ém mmmeaamiaamwgiafraagamienai mmrei‘mwami‘ernnmaaawaaenwmai memwmiqaammaiamw’iamaaemi Weamwwweaiéwzemamamaw W41 34.2oo7aiimtagarié’ei‘xraeamiqgiiiaem mea maa§mwiemmegmiwra%ammw amnmmaaammiimam Wgmaiwmaewmai‘mqatim mwmiwaranwimeemnmmmm WmawaamaiiimgqamagamsoQ/eMaw airriifaziwwmameimm ' aniaaamaia i(h, I‘ i 5i After hearing iearned counsei ior the peiitioner, i have gone through the pieadings and documenis appended thereto. 6. The ieaneoi Judge has exercised power under Order 7 Ruie 14(3) oi the Code, wherein it is cieariy provided 'ihai: a document which oughi io be produced in Court by the piainiifr‘ when ihe piaint is presenteci, or ‘ro ~% be enfered in the iist to be adéed or amexed‘tc the pEaim but is not produced or entered accordingiy, shai; not, wi’ihoui the ieave of the Cow: be received in e‘vidence on ‘ms beha§f at fne hearing of the suit. Admittediy! the said document couid not be produced ae f‘ne ciocument was not in possession oi the respoedeni and the fespondem obtained a coy of the document under provisions of Rigm to lm‘otmation Act on 3-1- 2007. 7. thus, for proper actjudication, in t'ne interest at justice, the document was rightly permitted to be produced in the Court. 3 cio not fiod any infirmity, itiegaiity or jurisdictionai error in the impugned iuoigment/order passed by t‘ne Court below. 8. it is weii settied principie of taw that under Articie 227 of the Constitution of indie. this Court has iurisdiotion of iudiciai review of the oroier passed by the Court beiow, in the event, there is manifest and apoerent error on the face oi the proceeoiings based on the oiear ignorance or utter disregard to the provisions of iaw or there is grave faiiure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby. Further. this Court can aiso entertain the petition it t‘nere is perversity. irreguiarity or iiiegaiity in the process or deoiston, not in the deoision itseif. 9. ‘Appiying the above settled principies of iaw to t’ne facts of the oresent case, it does not warrant an interference with the decision passed by the court ioeiow. 1 O. Thus, this petition is dismissed. No order as tooosts. i Sd/- Satish K.Agnih0tri i 7 Judge Raiu '