^?.;^ p" •Snti IN THE mOH COURT OF JUDICATUREAT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION (227) N0. '2-<-l <\ /2011 PETITIONER Plaintiff Kailash Nath Kushwaha S/o Shobhit Prasad Kushwaha, aged- about 45 years, R/e-village- Amhar, Thana- Patna, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, Distt.- Korea [C.G.] VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ o .BdB \^>> if^? s&- 1. Sita Bai W/o Babai Ram Sahu aged-about 46 years R/- village- Amhar, Thana- Patna, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, Distt.- Korea [C.G.] 2. State of Chhatdsgargh Through- Collector, Korea [C.G.] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT. ORDER OR DIRECTIONS ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petltion f227) No. 249 of2011 PETmONER Plalntlff RESPONDENTS Defendants Kallash Nath Kushwaha VCTSUB Sita Bai & another WRTTPETITION UNDERARJICLE 227 OP THE CONSTTrUTION OFINDIA {SBs Hun'bto Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. 3.\ Presant s Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the prtltloner. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State. l ORAL ORDER (Passed on 17.01.2011) 1. The instant petition ts dlreded agalnst the order dated 07.12.2010, passed by Clvil 3udge, Class-I, Balkunthpur, Dtstt. Korea. 2. Brlef facts of the case In nutshell are that :ln a sult ffled by the plaintiff, the defendant flled one glft deed. Durlng examlnatton of Smt. Sita Bai as clefendant's wltness No. 1 e sa(d document was sought to be exhiblted. The petltloner ralsed an objectlon that since glft deed Is not properly stamped and also not registered, the same Is not admlssible in the evtdence. 3. The trial court, reserved the plalntlff's objectton r^ardlng admlssiblllty of the documents. 4. Shrl Patel, learned counsel appeartng for the petittoner would submlt that the doGuments which ts not properiy stamped and •ra s^ .'->; ^ \ ^^ '"^. '^ reglstered cannot be admltted In evldence and also cannot be exhlbited. 5. Having heardthe counsel appearlng for thepetltloner and having perused the order Impugned, I do not flnd any substance in the petttion. The trial court has not admltted the document and deferred the declslon on this polnt for the time when the matter will be heard flnally, and ther^ore, the questlon of admisslblllty of the above document te yet to be decided by the trtal court and no flnal order has been passed in this regard. If it is found that the safd document is inadmlsslble, certalnly e document as well as the evldence led relating to the above document wfll not be read In the evidenee. 6. It Is well settled principle of law that thls Court, In exercise of Its supervlsory jurlsdictton under Artlcle 227 of the Constitutlon of Indla, should refrain Itself from interferlng with the ordar passed by the Court below, except In such cases where perverslty, tllegality, Irregularity or jurisdlGtional errer Is wrlt large on the face of the record, whlch rs not In the present case. 7. The petltlon has no merlt and the same Is aGeordtngly dtsmlssed in llmlne. ——— Sd//- ' N.K.Agrawal Judge Sahu I'"'