,0^5^ ^.y--""~ , ^ s ""• ^ rf-ettct '*-euu^^-L}..<..'°.---" HIGH COURT QF CHHATHSGARH BIiASPVR WP N0. /C2179' / 2006 PETITION UNDER Att. 227 ESTITUTK <t<- Petitioners/ Defendants No. 186 2 / /1. M/s. Patel Timber Mart 1 {Pivysietmshyt Pfrm. deteryaief ait tesBiess: efmeaatfeeettsms ncdbi/ay sleepeis, fimber merchmftetc.] , At AbhanpurUria, Raipur, Thr&' Pet. Np. 2. Pnyi.. ^ / 2. Shri Keshav Lal Patel S/o Shri Narayan Bhai Patel Aged 6Q Yrs. Prop. M/s. Patei TiatbeF Mart, R/o Abhanpur, Teh. & Distt. Raipur VERSUS /l. Dena Bank, A Body Corporate, with central of5ce SE. Maker Tower CufFe Parade, Bombay, & Branch at Hamtiff Abhanpiir, Teh. & Distt. Raipur and Defendant 2. Shri DuKchand GiFepunje S/o Adktgi Girepuaje J^Q 3 / Prop. - M/s Mahavir Gen. Stores & M/s. Bhimraj HaBer & 03 Mffl -, Tefa. & Mstt. RaptB- AssaOmg Order Dated 08/04/05 Passed By The Court OfSQP IV^^ ADJ^ Rayiur, ift CS No. ^&^f. i S~A /og'- {lHe (petition ofSetttumerMostyfspectfuffyShawetlt^s VoQows- ,. ; , ,...:,,,;. HIGHCOURTO^CHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'bleShri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition No.1247 of 2006 Petitioners Respondente versus M/s Patel Timber Mart and another Dena Bank and another Present: Shri Raja Sharma, counsel for the petitioners. Writ Petltjon under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ORAL ORDER (Passed on 31stJanuary, 2011) Petitioners/defendants' prayer under Section 65 of the Evidence Act has been partly rsjected on the ground that the petitioners have not pleaded or explained as to how the relevant document came in their possession and also that the plairitiff/Dena Bank has doubted the writing on the said document. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the plaintiff/Dena Bank itself has filed the document and thus the petitioners are in a position to explain the same and submit explanation with regard to the writing. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission of the Court to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to submit duly constituted application explaining or removing the defects pointed out by the trial Court while dismissing the application in part. 4. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. ___-—- ^ p^aS-Mishra Gopal