>1...,.I^- fc.,^1^ p-"^'., t^^C^," C^ (o- ^^- ^i^l^l &l^yt IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURfC.G.) WRIT PETITION f227) N0. ^^3- OF 2010 PETITIONER PLAINTIFF /'.- ^f^--" ^••:^y •^ \OVL^^ .y ,^-Y'Y-"' Y' ^ RESPONDENTS : DEFENDANTNO.l DEFENDANT N0.2 1. 2. Shikha Ghosh, aged about 42 years Wife of Shri S. K. Ghosh, Resident 6f :> Charouda, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.). Through : General Power of Attorney Holder, Vinay Mintra, aged about 49 years Son of Late N. D. Mitra, Resident of Adarshanagar, E-9, Durg, Tahsil and District Ddrg (C.G.). VERSUS Santosh Agrawal, aged about not described Son of Late Harishchand Agrawal, Resident of Near Sirsa Gate Bhilai-3, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Durg, District Office Durg, District Durg (C.G;). WRITPETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ ~ ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'bie Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Klishra Wrlt Petition (227) No. 1827 / 2010 PETmONER RESPONDENTS Versys Shikha Ghosh Sant<^h Agrawat and another. Shri Prashant Jayaswal, Sensor Advocate wfth Shri Saif Khan, counset for the peiitioner. Shri Shravan ^rawal, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panei Lawyer forthe State/resporTdent No.2. WRiT PETtTION UNDER /^TK;LE 227 OF THE CONSTtTUTION OF - ^N^A ORALORDER (04.10.2010) Dwing pendency of appeal under Order 43 Rute 1(r) of C.P.C. before the Court beSow, the petitioner herein, who is the pteintiff In the sust and $n whose favour an order of temporary injunction has been granted by the triat Court, has mw^i the subject appltealion under Order 41 Rute 27 of C.P.C. which has been rejected by the appeilate Court. (2) The Court betow has passed a detaited and reasoned ord@r obsennng that the documente sought to be produced as additional evldenc^ in Itie appettate proceedings are not neeessary for adijydication of Ihe miscettaneous appeal. (3) The pettlioner wanted to submft copies of stetements of wifai^s^ recorded in a criminal trial initiated by the petftioner s^ainst responctent No.1. (4) In tihe opinion of thfe Court, the appeitate Court has not commttted any ^ error of jurisdiction by r^ecttng ftie petitioner's application under C^der 41 f^ute 27 of C.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner has not b^en abte to point out '"%_ .<li~^l -sy' 111 ^;^ /! ^ ^^ 2^' as to why ttie miscetlan^?us appeal pending before the Court below cannot be decided in tfie absence of documente. (5) There is no errw of jurisdiction committed by the Court below while passing the impugned order. (6) The instant petition Is, ttier^ore, cJlismissed. prashantKumarMisbra K-