VIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CI-IHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION No. ) Io 4 i2006 PETITIONERS/ /I’. Smt.Suman Dheer, aged 52 PLAINTIFFS yéars, Wife of Shri '1 B.K.Dheer, MIG — 19, Mi? ‘ § \ob Wv’M ‘ /\ Indrawati Colony, Raipur \\ (C.G.). W‘ry\ /2. Smt Rajkumarl Kanda, aged 6O years W/o Srl Madanlal Kanda C/o Smt Suman Dheer, MIG-19, Indrawati Colony, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTSL A 1. Gyarl Ganga Educational DEFENDANTS Academy, Vlllage Nardaha, Baloda Bazar Road Tah 8a Dlstt. Ralpur (C G) (2. Laxmi aged 55 Narayan years, son Shandilya, of Shri ' H.P. Shandilya. \ Q Q Sachin Shandilya, aged, 28 years, son of Shri Upendra _\:.,.s~‘ Shandllya Respondent No2 8a 3 are res1dent of A 2 Rajev Nagar Ralpur (C G) . Ravindra Pal Singh, aged about 58 yrs., son of Ram Prasad Singh M 32 Rajeev Nagar, Ralpur (C G ) A11 Directors of Gyan Ganga Educa’uonal Instltute Pvt Ltd V111age — Nardaha, Baloda Bazar Road Ralpur (C.G.) Gyan Ganga Education Institute Private Limited, 'Viuage— Nardaha, Baloda Bazar Road, Raipur (C.G.). 4 WRIT PETITION NDER ARTICLE 227 O CONSTITUTION OF INDIA U F THE Shn Klshoxe Bhadun learned counsel for the petmonexs Hemd on adnnssmn T1115 1s a petmon tied under Altlclc 227 of the . Consnmtlon of Ind1a bemg ‘ 14/ 2/2006 passed in Civil Suit No 16-A/ 2005 by the Court of IX Addmonal Dlstnct Judge (Fast Track Court), Rmpur It appears that by the 11 has dismissad an applicau'on 11 Rulc 16 of the Code of d1sm1ssal has been taken th and the reasons are not stated m the apphcanon as to why the documents are reqmred to be Anspected by the p]amf1%s ' The grounds taken by t apphcahon do not appear t prov1des a noucc to produce the not1ce to any party to p h1s pleadmgs or the af&iav1t under Form no.7 at Appen Circumstances may requim the essence of law as lald d t 1t only proVIdes Wlth referem the pleadmgs of the party. I in the pleadings of the pa upugned order, the learned A D J of the plamtm's med under Older (J1v1l Procedure The ground for ‘ apphcation has not been med at an mawt 1n support of the‘ aggneved w1th the order dated he Trial Court for dismissal of the reasonable Rule 16 of Order 11 the documents It lays down that duce any document referred to m shall be 1n the format presmbed ix — C,- with such variations, as e t e e to the documents referred to 1n {the documents are there referred rty, the nouce for‘productlon of reasons for production are‘no / by Rule 16 of Order 11 becaus o o