HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w P (227) No 6219 OF 2010 PETITIONER Defendant No. 1 Jogesh Shukla, S/o 1at€ Madanlal Shukla, aged about “53 years, R/o near’ Bharat Kiraya Bhandar, Brdmhanpara, Raipur Tahsil 85 \ District Raipur (C.G.). Smt. Vijay Laxmi Tiwari, W/o Shri Rammurti Tiwari, R/o in front of waterfllter plant near govt‘ School, Mathpurainé, Ra,ipur (C.G.). Plaintiff Suresh Shukla, S/o late Madanlal Shukla R/Q Sector No 4 behind Water Tank Plot NO 211 Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar Raipur Tahs1l and District. Raipur (C.G.)'. Smt Urvershi Diwan‘, W/o late Krishnadhar Dlwan Sangeeta Shukla D/o late Mandanlal Shukla Respondent 3 and 4 are R/oof behind Danteshwari Mandir, near Malsai Talab, Kushalplir,'Raipur, Tahsil and District'Raipur (C.G.). Smt. Rashmi Dube, W/o Shri Anil Dube, R/o Kolihapuri, Tah$il and Distrlct Durg (C G ) State of Chhattisgarh Collector Raipur (C G ) ' (Defendant No. 2 to 6.). WRIT PF’I‘ITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Versus 1) RESPONDENTS through (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:— Mr. Manoj Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate for the respondents N0. 1 to 5. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 6. ' ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 1 1/07/201 1) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of llndia petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 12/7/2010 passed by 133‘ Civil Judge, Class—ll; Raipur (C.G.) in civil suit No. 115—A/2009 whereby 13m Civil Judge, Class—II, Raipur (C.G.) has dismissing the application uner , d Order 8 Rule 1(iii) of Civil Proc¢dure Code on the ground that’alleged‘ documents are not related to the present dispute. Mr. Manoj Dubey,‘ Advocate for the “petitioner, Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate for the respondents No: l 'to 5 and’Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 6 are heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Virtually property in dispute related to ancestral dispute is pending foradjudication in which documents relating to previous alienation by respondents No. l to 5 would be necessary but Court below has disrnissed the application without any cogent ground. g' Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he has filed photocopy of aforesaid public documents. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. l‘ to 5 and learned counsel for the State/respondent No. 6 opposed the petition and submits that Court below has rightly rejected the application and alleged documents are not relevant forjust decision of the case, Order impugned perused even as per submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, he has filed photocopy of certain public documents. Virtually, photocopy of public documents are no documents; l do not find any illegality requiring any interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Consequently, petition ‘is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to establish his case by other modes available under the law, Sdl— T.P. Sharma Judge NO order as to costs.