/ IN THE HIGH COURT‘ OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(2271 No. /‘l% O (201 1 a WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE~227 OF THE / Abdul Sah'm Khan, S/o- Late Abdul Rahim Khan, Aged about— 80 years, Cultivator, Village—Mohra, Tahsil 85 District- Bilaspur. At present residing at Juni Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil 8r, District— Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS Respondent/ Defendant 1 Shamsunnisa, W/o— Unknown (EX—husband‘ Abdul Razzak), Aged about—50 years, R/0~ Baloda. At present residing at— Talapara, Near Mosque of Ramjani Baba, Bilaspur, Tahsil 85 District— Bilaspur (C.G.).‘ Abdul Mukeem Khan, S/o— Abdul Sattar Khan, Aged about— 35 years. Abdul Mujeeb Khan, S/o— Abdul Sattar Khan, Aged about— 25 years. Both 2 8a 3 R/o— Village— Mohra, Tahsil 85 District— Bilaspur(C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Bilas'pur (C.G.). Kamrunnisha, Widow of Hashmat /, 4. 5. Ali, Aged about— 74 years, R/o— a” CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Petitioner/ Plaintiff : 2. Mohan Bada, Juni line, Near Karona Chowk, Bilaspur, Tahsil 85 District-Bilaspur(C . G .). K6. Shamim Begam‘, W/o —Sabir (D/o— Hashmat Ali), Aged about 53 years, R/o —Vi11age Barduli, P.O. Patharia, Tahsil—Takhatpur, District—Bilaspur (C.G.). / 7. Nasim Bagam, W/ o-Nabbu, Aged about~50 years, (D/o- Hashmat Ali), R/o—Village Khamahria, Sub— Tahsil—Seepat, Tahsil—Masturi, District—Bilaspur (C.G.). 8. Nafls, W/o—Wahid (D/o- Hashmat K Ali), Aged about—47 years, R/o— Rajendra Nagar, Tahsil 8L District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 9. Ajamat Ali, S/o—Hashmat Ali, Aged about-44 years, R/o—Mohra Bada, Juni Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil 85 District—Bilaspur (C.G.) /'10. Akaram Ali, S/o—Hashmat Ali, Aged about—4O years, R/ o —Mohra Bada, Juni Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil 85 District—Bilaspur (C.G.) 11. Syd. Yaseen Ali, Aged—71 years, S/o—Meer Gulab Ali. 12. Syd. Mubarak Ali, Aged about— / 60 years, S/o—Meer Gulab Ali. Both 11 8a 1.2 R/o—Gram Pratappur, Post—Kodava Bani, Tahsil—Mungeli, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). / 3 (13. Smt. Raba Khatun, W/o—Parvez Khan, Aged about-‘60 years, D/ o—Haji Abdul Rahman Khan, R/o Mohar, Tahsil 8L District— Bilaspur. At present residing at — Housing Board Industries Area, Block N0. 10, Quarter No. 13, Bhilai, Tahsil 8L District— Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE N OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF CONSTITUTIB WRIT l WRITS, ORDERI ORDERS, DIRECTION l DIRECTIONS,ETC. 46g HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 1480 of2011 PETITIONER : Abdul Salim Khan VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Shamsunnisa & others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB" Hon’ble Mr N K. Agarwal J ) Present : Shn KA Ansan Sr Advocate wxth Shn Badmddm Khan Advocate for the pet1t10ner Shn GD Waswam Govt Advocate for the State. x ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18.03.2011) e3, The instant petition nled under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India calls in question the legality and propriety of order dated 22.11.2010, passed by the Ist Civil Judge Class II, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 1- A/09, whereby the petitioner’s application filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act has been dismissed. 2. Facts in brief are : the petitioner moved an application on 20.02.2004 (Annexure P/8) for retum of original Will dated 29.12.1990 which was alleged to be filed by the petitioner in Revenue Case No. 23/A-6/98-99 which was decided on 30.10.2010 by the Naib Tehsildar, Bilaspur. 3. In the instant case, the petitioner filed a photocopy of the Will. By application dated 19.10.2010 (Annexure P/9) permission was sought to lead secondary evidence with respect to alleged Will dated 29.12.1990 l l under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. As per application, original Will is not available in the record of Naib Tehsildar and probably it has been returned to him. 4? The tn'al court dismissed the above application holding petitioner failed to prove that the document has lost. I have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. 6. Section 63 of the Evidence Act defines secondary evidence whereas Section 65 deals with how and in what manner secondary evidence can be permitted to lead in the case. As per petitioner’s own case, the document is not lost nom the record of Naib Tehsildar and probably it has been returned to him. Proof of loss of original document is sine- n qumon to attract provisions contained in Section 65 of the Evidence Act for permission to lead secondary evidence in which petitioner utterly failed. 7. In view Of above, I do not find any illegality or materially irregularity in the order impugned passed by the trial court warranting interference of this court under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face ofthe record, which is not in the present case. 9. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. t i r Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge ‘