/-^•o-0-^-J'U--^ . ^ ,A . ^- fo , F1''1 . m IN THE HIGH COURT QF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR PETITIONER Writ Petitior^227.) N0.&^§?//2010 • ^ Ghurwaram S/o Sri Anujram Aged about 50 years Caste Rawat, Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Chodha, Tahsil Kharsia District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1) ,././. •^y/ ^..^/ ^ ^// ^^y^ ^yy -2) .A. ,<^ <r,.<v <%./"y <^" ^ ^ Ghur Ram S/o Shri Anuj Ram, aged about 50 years, Caste Rawat, Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Chodha, Tahsil Kharsia District Raigarh(C.G.) Sukhru Ram S/o Budhan Sai aged about 70 years, Caste Rawatia, Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Banipathar, Post Chodha, Tahsil Kharsia District Raigarh (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA 3) mGH COURT OF CHIIATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon^ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No. 6881/2010 PETITIONER : Ghurwaram Versus RESPONDENTS : Ghur Ram and others Appearance: Shri Manoj Jaiswal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinod Tekam, PL for the State/respondent No3. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUT!ONQF!ND!A ORAL ORDER (29.11.2010) Heard. (2) The first appellate court has rejected petitioner's application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for taking additional evidence on record. (3) The trial court had dismissed petitioner's suit for declaration of his half share, recovery of possession and permanent injunction with respect to the suit propei-ty. (4) The suit was dismissed by the trial court on 18/02/2009 and the first appeal is pending before the appellate court. (5) The petitioner moved certain documents before first appellate court under Order 41 Rule 27 ofCPC. (6) The appellate court has rejected the application after making observations that the petitioner has not been able to explain as to why the documents could not be submitted in evidence in the trial court or ^m ^—-^>' ^ that inspite ofdue diligence, he was prevented by any sufificient cause to produce the documents. It has also been observed that the documents are not necessary for adjudicating the lis between the parties. (7) Leamed counsel for the petitioner has argued fhat the property vvas purchased by the petitioner and therefore the documents are necessaty. However, on pemsal ofthejudgmentand decree passed by the trial court, it would appear that the plaintiff himself is claimmg halfshare in the suit property. In view ofthe said, the first appellate court has not committed any error ofjurisdiction while rejecting the prayer for grant ofproduction ofadditional evidence. (8) No case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of constitution is made out in favour of the petitioner. The petition is bereft ofany substance, it fails and is dismissed. prasbaw,^^n Judge r^