BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (227) N0. / 2010 PETITIONERS [DEFENDANTS\ ^M^ ^2 ^3. RESPONDENTS ^l IPLAINTIFI'} RESPONDENT ^2 [DEFENDANT N0.4] Dr. Vijay Singh Gupta, aged about 69 years, son of late BaHadur Singh Gupta, resident of Apapura, Katcheri Road, Durg, District Durg (G.G.) ...Defendant No.3 Milind Gupta, aged about 33 years, son of Dr. Vijay Singh Gupta, resident of Apapura, Katehei-i Road, Durg, DistrictDurg(C.G.) ...Defendant No.l Skand Gupta, aged about 31 years, son of Dr. Vijay Singh Gupta, resideht of Apapura, Katcheri Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) : ...Defendant No.2 (Defendants No.l SE 2 through power of attorney holder Dr. Vijay Singh Gupta) VERSUS Ajit Singh Gupta, aged about 75 years, son of late Bahadur Singh, resident of Apapura, Kutchehri Road, Durg (C.G.) Ajay Singh Gupta, aged about 68 years, son of late Bahadur Singh Gupta, resident ofHouse No. 179, Utai Road, Near Labour Court, Iranidera, Durg District Durg. 'i'l'pii WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227^)F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1) PARTICULARS OF PETITIONER : As mentioned in the cause title above. 2) PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As mentioned in the cause title above. HIGH CQURT OF CHHATT1SGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'bleShri Mariindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. WritPetitjon(227)No.1280^010 PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS: Dr Vijay Singh Gupta and 2 others Versus Ajit Singh Gupta and another WRrrPETfflON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THXCONSTrTUTION QFiNKA FQFtPBaiOUNCMENTOFORDER ^^&ta5^ ^^^^ ^^ .^' .•'"'.^••'l c "SS'Sh TS £ •(,;»»>":.,<• ^••^fff' (S "^*!^:! ^^'^-^ gg::|8BsB5r BBlB»; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Writ PetJtionf227»No.1280^010 PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS: Dr. Vijay Singh Gupta and 2 others Versus Ajit Singh Gupta and another WRIT PETmON UNDER AKTICLE 2270F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Present: ShriP.R.Patankar.counselforthepetifloners. * ORDER (Passed on J^April, 2010) By this petition, flled under Articte 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed legality and validity of order dated 24/2/2010 passed by First Civit Judge, Class 2, Durg in Ch/il Suit no.4-A of2006. By impugned order, learned Court below has rejected application under Order 13 Rule 1 Sub-rule 3 a and b read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code filed by petitioners / defendants No.1 to 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in view of the nature of controversy involved in the suit, the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 9/1/09 is quite relevant. It is submitted that the petitioners in their written statement have averred that deceased Randhir Singh Gupta was married which fact has been suppressed by the plaintiff and he has not come with clean hands. In the application under Order 13 Rule 1 Sub-rule 3, it has been stated that in order to get the property in dispute registered in their names in revenue records, proceedings were instituted and continued parallely along with the Civil Suit. It has also been submitted that the plaintiff has not disclosed pendency of various revenue cases and several important Sll.,|i^!. fillfil, BiiiKiai! ,li s '"tt--;- iil,,. i's-^/ "["•..X;..,--.-1 'siv ,,^rf»^ facts have been suppressed. As the Board of Revenue in its order dated 9/1/09 has clarified various facts concerning several cases pending and decided before the revenue courts, it would be necessary and the interest ofjusfce to bri"9 °i'der dated 9/01/09 of the Board of Revenue on record for cross-examination and to refresh memory of the plaintiff. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Court below has recorded that eariier also the peUtioner filed application to bring on record documents concerning revenue cases. An apptication was filed on 16/07/07 for bringing on record, order dated 19/03/07 passed bySub-Divisionat OfRcer, Durg, though the application was rejected on 3/1/08 on Uie ground that the same was unnecessary and irrelevant. Later on, the aforesaid order dated 19/03/07 has been confirmed by the Board of Revenue vide ite order dated 9/01/09 by setting aside order dated 31/3/08 passed by Additional Collector, Durg. It has also been recorded by the learned Court below that after perusal of order dated 9/1/09 of the Board of Revenue, the same was found to be irrelevant and unnecessary. Provisions contained in Order 13 Rule 3 CPC empower the Court to reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the ground of such rejection, at any stage of the suit. From the perusal of the order passed by the leamed Court below, it is revealed that the learned Court below has recorded that earlier an application to bring on record an order dated 19/03/07 passed by Sub- Divisional OfRcer, Durg was rejected. Later on, the Board of Revenue vide its order 9/01/09 has affirmed that qrder dated 19/03/07 by setting aside the order dated 31/03/08 of Additiongl Collector, Durg. It is thus clear that the order dated 9/1/09 has been passed by the Board of Revenue arising out of order dated 31/03/08 passed by Additional Collector, Durg setting aside order dated 19/03/07 passed by Sub-Divisional OfRcer, Durg. It is also noted Uiat the learned Court below has perused the order dated 9/1/09 ofthe Board .^ • ^s.sse^l ,i,^swxri ^••'E" of Revenue to come to the conclusion that the said document is unnecessary and irrelevant. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is iat the said document i.e. order dated 9/1/09 passed by the Board of Revenue records the contention of Ajit Singh and Ajay Singh that Randhir Singh Gupta was unmarried and he had no issues. In the written statement, petitioners have averred that Randhir Singh Gupta was married and this fact has been suppressed by the plaintiff. It is therefore submitted that at the time of cross examination of the plaintiff and refreshing his memory, the aforesaid order dated 9/1/09 is relevant and necessary. Even this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable in as much as the Board of Revenue in the order, recorded contention of the parties and thereafter decided the matter upholding the eariier order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer on 19/03/07. Application for taking order dated 19/03/07 was eariier rejected. Against that order, no remedy was taken. In view of the above, 1 do not find any jurisdictional illegality by the leamed Court below while rejecting petitioner's application. Learned Trial Court has considered the aspect of relevancy and has recorded reasons. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by allowing the application, it would not cause any prejudice, would not render the order passed by the learned Court betow, illegal or perverse or suffering from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of tndia. The petition therefore has no merit and no grounds are made out warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Articte 227 of the Constitution of India. ^ The petition is accordingly dismissed. ^' .y ^v>e ^sf^ ^ssS^-as- 11