INTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No. ^ C^IZ- / 2010 PETITIONER DEFENDANT No. 1 ^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFFS 1. ^,..- Q\^.••' ^' '^{^./<^< 2< 3. 4. Bhagatram S/o Shri Bolwa Rajwar, Aged about 35 years, Occupation Wagery, Presently Resident of Village Pidhha PS and Tahsil SuraJpur District Surguja (C.G.) Bundel S/o Kalma Rajwar, Aged about 40 years, Occupatin Agriculturist, R/o Village Pidhha PS and Tahsil Surajpur District - Surguja (C.G.) Gitram S/o Shri Lochan @ Lodharam Rajwar, Aged about 40 years, R/o Village Tuldul, Tahsil - Surajpur, District - Surguja (C.G.) Guddi D/o Lochan @ Lodharam W/o Bhagat R/o Village Latori (Jamgala), District -Surguja (C.G.) Lodharam @ Lodhan aged about 60 years, Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Tuldur , Tahsil Surajpur, District - Surguja (C.G.) Tupy Bai D/o Kalma W/o Baljeet, Caste- Rakwar, aged bout 45 yerars, R/o village Unchidih, PS and Tahsil Surajpur, Distract - Surjuga (C.G.). 6. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Collector Distt Surguja (Ambikapur) (Defendant No. 2) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA :;L%,^i^ft?;^!i^sa!^^^ '^ .0^ ^ fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 8JB: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra W.P. (227) No. 4942/2010 PETITIONER : Bhagatram Versus RESPONDENT8 : Bundel and otiiers Appearance: Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.6. WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORALORDER (06.09.2010) The trial court has dismissed the petitioner/defeadant's application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC for taking document on record. (2) The trial court has dismissed the application after observing that the defendant filed his written statement in the year 2003 and is participating in the suit and yet the application has been moved after closure ofevidence ofboth the parties and when the matter was fixed for final argument. (3) Leamed counsel for the petitioner would submit that the document is necessary, as it has bearing on the merits ofthe suit. (4) On perusal ofthe subject application (Annexure P-3), it would be noticed that the petitioner has not mentioned any reason whatsoever explaining the reason as to why the document could not .2- w^% ."•fc ^ r be filed along with the written statement Thus, the observation made by the trial court while dismissing the application is not perverse. (5) Leamed trial court has not committed any error ofjurisdiction while rejecting the petitioner's application for taking document on record, which was submitted after 7 years offiling written statement and that too without offering any explanation. (6) The instant petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge