HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR Slnale Bench: Hon'bleShri Dhirendra Mishra. J f^\ Petitioner (Plaintiff) WritPetition (2271 No. 2823 of 2010 I Salikram, son of Nirmal Singh Patel, aged about 70 years, village Sangitarai, Post Chatamuda, Tahsil and District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Vs. Resoondents (Defendantsl 1. j Daulat Ram Patel, son of Kaimkaran Patel, 1 aged about 71 years, residence of village Sangitarai, Post Chatamuda, Tahsil and District Raigarh. 2. j State of Madhya Pradesh now Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3. i Virendra, son of Heeralal, aged about 55 1 years, (died), residence of village Bahma, Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. A. Amrit Kunwar, wife of Virendra Kumar, aged about 53 years. B. Kunti Bai, wife of Mehgal Singh, aged about 38 years. C. La!ita wife of Dorilal, aged about 36 years. D. Rajesh Kumar, son of Virendra Kumar, agedabout 34 years E. Dinesh Kumar, son of Virendra Kumar, aged about 34 years. F. Meena wife of Dr. Bodhiram, aged about 30 years. A and D residence of Village Bahma, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh. B residence of village Domesara, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh. C residence of Post Office Colony, Near Karmal College, Raigarh District Raigarh E residence of Main Veterinary Hospital, Raigarh F residence of Near ChunaBhatta, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4. Arun son of Heeralal, aged about 50 years, residence of Bahma, Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5. Krishna Chand, son of Heeralal, aged about r 48 years, residence of Bahma, Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 6. Laxmi son of Heeralal, aged about 46 ; years, residence of Patthalgaon, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 7. Padman, son of Heeralal, aged about 42 „ L|ji|B9!tte4iL|3i'i||Je6Ji^^^ ^'!B^|u||^^|i|3VQpl^^l|9^ ;p©6i|'LiBujs|o9p|6g^u lMje6siue4i.iO '4JE^^|^iJ^!a Je6un|i^ j|ist|ej.% ^^{i&ptSQl ^^ ^n>jejs^^os|jei|uij>(^p^ lN%^^i!s^l'l'^'^i^^"oi||^^ j^ jo^nep^ j'qieumieg ^ ^S^qe^p96e'|n^eN^09l!^!egui!A^s;^ ;i|jjeBsjuejL)(|<>{'t^B!eaip|liisiGi?te^ lisqe^ <eiut|ei^||JG^ ^yQ^il^ tno^ei;R|6i|'|)iui^ te||i||2|i^ ^j^|ve^j]^|^jjj|jji|jj|j|:^ 14!^^iwy^aB^ii9i9pjs^.^^:;'sii^ :^no(|e|pi||ei|iLjf6t!^^|e||u^ %i<je^j||^|^|'t|jeB!i|l|^^ ^st|ej,'i@ueiu,4Sal::l%^':j93U9p!S^K^^ 8g ljFioqe/R96^'ji^pim^|^3u^ j j-^jgLjB!|y^!J»sia^e6yn|^ l^ej. 'ueujyieg ^B||!|\^ Ofc ^o^'l^^ ^lBy^&tM •tiJeBie^iou^ia ^Bunije-il 1!^^ <®^4eg^BeinA JD ^uepi&^ ^|je^A^o&;<nDfleitIi.^^t pe6e 'qBuis^npBcTt-o/AAue^cJ^^^^^ %llli;lljllyjiliB<^j|ii>?lKijli ^|^ec|;;?4^uJ^npi<lJ^IIIBilillli 1|yl'^|ii|||oc||l|:^||g||% ^6uisujnpe^^JuosJ:|||eJcj|ti|||e|i||^ ^•s!ie9^:^£.wocte,'p96e?^t'^,^,:.:; 'l^dj U®u!SurtP?d^^l^ i^^6sjl^440 ^^ie^^^^^ yiN^^^^8itlNH^ISaJ^ ^pe^|^jEye>fuJ|^>t:|i^||:i||s.|^ •t|j]|Bsi]||q^'i^eB!e^|3u^!(3^ 'eBunjie^ijs^j^'eujiiig^o^^ ^^^|Jri(|C^JJ3^6BJj'UJ^B^9|lJI^^UOS||J •9je|J!i^q^j'L|j^6t||^^u|sj<3^'e|u^ JiisMi||lj||iM^|^||j||||lisiil|^ ltnoGje|.p||e|ue|ie>|uJ|tj>j^ij§s!|^ ^|l|JJ|JI|sJ|eii[|3|(||^|Ij|Joj^ ^!9t|ej.^^^ie|ji^^u|p!^ in<>gep^|^'tf6iii^t|e^u!^ej/\|^ou^^ •tlj^i^^||L)JE|Bje^^Jis!a 'ilunjj^i listj^'^u^eg^ 93u|pis|j '^e^ o.Z. ini^e pSBil 'qBuis ?|e6ui^^ ^ ^rt^eB^leM^ 'i^e^e^^ t'ieje^6u^;||^||!A^^o^|^y^is|j|^:iii9^ Qfr^c|qe;iQ©&||eAi|L|je>|^^os'itB^6e^ l^si^M^^iBil^w^aR^i listje^ 'iej^eM^|^|a3y9pjs9j; '^ ^o^KJI^^||BAi|^ui>t^iosiuei|sn^cijqey |tl.i|6s!||L|tt|iqii^ey|3u|S!C]i ^e6un|!^||St|^^'ei|u4ei^a3u|pi^^^^ "61. IW w^ ym i.'^k'i^ ii^m .:'! s^, mM ;:;'?1^ [w •I ,•".'•." "';"•• WQ^ m!^ l'8l i I ^:is^^m (Writ Petition underArticle 227 of the Constitution of India) Present: Shri C.J.K. Rao, counselfor the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (22"aJune,2010) By the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 28.1.2010 (Annexure P/1) and 20.4.2010 (Annexure P/2). Shri CJK Rao, leame^d counsel for the petitioner submits that examination-in-chief of the petitioner/plaintiff was recorded by way of affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC on 18.3.2005. He was also cross- examined by the defendants bn 24.10.2007. Thereafter, by the impugned order, he was permitted to adduce documentary evidence on 12.11.2008 and also permitted to exhibit those documents. However, his prayer to file additional supplementary affidavit under Order 18 Rule4 of the CPC has been rejected vide impugned order of Annexure P/1. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order of Annexure P/2, whereby the defendants have been permitted to put question to the plaintiff's witnesses relating to the documents exhibited subsequently and his objection in this regard has been rejected. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. 1 After the plaintiff was examined and cross-examined during trial, he was permitted to file certain documents being orders passed by the revenue authorities and he was also permitted to exhibit the above documents in the absence of any objection from the defendants. Since the additional documents filed by the plaintiff have already been admitted in evidence by the trial Court, the question of permitting the plaintiffto file additional affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 to bring this fact on record, is unnecessary and the same has rightly been rejected. Objection of the plaintiff that since he was not permitted to file additional affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 to incorporate in his evidence the fact about the document, the trial Court was not justified in permitting the defendants to put questionrelating to the said documents to the witnesses of the plaintiff in their cross-examination, is also without any basis as the documents have been exhibited and are a part of evidence adduced by the ^(Uv^o^ (/ plaintiff. The defendants have every right to.question^the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses with respect to the exhibited documents. Therefore, the trial Court has not committedi.any illegality, infirmity or jurjsdictional error resulting in manifest injustice to the petitioner while passing the impugned orders, warranting interference in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the pqitition being without substance deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge