4 'l"""cl"a' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(2271NO. <A5VVA /2009 (S.B.I PETITIONER/ PLAINTIFF /: Smt. Geeta B. Nayar, Wd/o Late G.B. Nayar, aged about 42 years, R/o Fokatpara Kasaridih, Durg, TahsilSs Distt. Durg (C.©.) RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS ^.•?1 v}~~/< «^^ <^" sS>~ c^ ' / .'lv' ^ -•* ~ s<' v^/ \^A% r^S^ (p ^ VERSUS < 1. Siya Ram, S/o Shiv Prasad Chandrakar, aged about 50 years, R/o Village Laxmanpur, P.S. Chhuikhadan, Tahsil & Distt, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^2. Shri G.N. Nayar, S/o Late G. GopalPillai, Through - General Power of Attomey, Smt. A.R., Das, W/p K. Ram Das R/o 17/1221 ICrishnalayam pandari, Pragati Nagar, Pandari, Tahsil 85 Distt. Raipiu- (C.G.) ' 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Electncal and Engineering Sub Division, Irrigation Department, Utai . Road, Durg Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) w z WRIT PETI'nON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA f '3's? ^.'TTSRTq, •g^r'TS, facli'M^ '/0^/'2^-^ L<^(° C1 •3n^iTra^(^3q^: rRaT®? —h~S^~HOTiTbIe~^riJustic^NX ^NHWT-wraf •?fezi •^•3?SaH3!I^l Shri SK Guha, Advocate fpi the petitioner. Shri AS Kachhwaha, Dy. ^dvocate Genera.l for the S Heard on admission. The instant petition is dir^cted 09, passed by the Ist Additionjal Durg, in case No. 38-A/07, wheijs filed by the petitioner under Ord^r ofCPC has been rejected. against the order dated 24-07- Principal Judge, Family Court, eby and whereunder the application br 11 Rulel9 read with Order 13 (2) The brieffacts ofthe case|are that, on 17.07.09 when the case was fixed for final argument, t|ie petitioner moved an application under Order 11 Rulel9 read witl^ Qrder 13 (2) ofCPC for a direction to the respondent No. 3 i.e. SDp, Electrical and Engmeering Sub Division, Irrigation Department,) Utai Road, Durg, fp bring certa.in documents in the court. The trial court, holding tl|at the petitioner/defendant herself closed evidence on 28.03.2006iand thereafter she has filed the instant application on the date ^hen the matter is fixed for final argument, the petitioner's app}ication cannot be accepted and rejected the same. -?;r.T^h'^r<r^yn^:?^^:ffsIff^—E~s/55—11/2008—i;oo,ooo. ~l• ?=iF=" ~~^wss^sf^ 'f^^-tS.V' •g-^ "^pBFpr, "g^iTTpr?, N^rray s'a qiRiwfN'waS ^'fe!A ^sn?R 'Atter heanrig learne? couBselapneaniig for the petitioner and after perusing the record, I do ncjt fmd and illegality or pen'ersity in the order impugned leading to |manifest injustice so as to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of tljis court under Article 227 of the Constitution ofladia. It is well settled principle ^flaw that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdictioa undei{ Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from i^iterfering with the order passed by ! the Court below, except in sucy; cases where perversity, illegalily, irregularity or jurisdictional err^r is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the presen^ The petition deserves to b4 order asto costs. case. and is accordingly dismissed. No Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge