\•f •r Ru^S Slngt®B©iieh IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fU/A 227) NO. ^192- /2011 PETITIONER DEFENDANT\ISTp.l .. .^M^. .^^.- RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFFS '^* ...*•• <"" Smt. Jamuna Bai, W/o. Nandkumar Sahu, aged about 45 years, D/o. Shivcharan Sahu, R/o. Bazar Chowk, Devbaloda, Tahsil Patan, District . Durg CC.G.) VERSUS l] -^" Premlal S/o. Bhagwat Prasad Sahu, aged about 38 years, 2] Narendra, S/o. Bhagwat Prasad Sahu, aged about 32 years, Both above R/o. village Sakra, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) /" 3] State of Chhattisgarh, through: Collector, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ...Respondent/defendant no.2 WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BTLASPUR Writ Petition f227) No, 3192 of2011 PETITIONER Defendaiit RESPONDENTS Plamtiffs Smt. Jamuna Bai VERSUS Premlal & others fWRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF TIffiCONSTmJriQNOFINDIA) fSB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. AgarwaL J.) Present : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri SRJ Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 28.06.2011) Heard on admission. 1. The instant petition, filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India calls in question the legality and propriety oforder dated 17.03.2011, passed by VIIIth Additional District Judge, Durg, in Civil Suit No.26- A/2011. 2. Respondent No. 1/PlaintifF filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the petitioner. "According to the plaintiffs, the defendanf No. 1/petitioner herein executed agreement of sale dated 12.04.2006 in his favour. The above document was denied by the petitioner herein on the ground that same is forged and thumb impression appearing in the document is not ofdefendant. 3. After closing evidence ofboth the parties, the trial court permitted the respondents to file document i.e. general power of attomey dated \.t&^^ 01.05.2009 and also to prove the same by calling evidence from the offiee ofSub-Registrar. 5. At this stage, in order to prove that the thumb impression appearing in the document dated 12.04.2006 is forged, the petitioner moved an application for opinion ofhandwriting expert. The same was rejected by the order impugned. Hence this petition. 6. The trial court, aflter obsendng that the petitioner has already denied execution of document dated 12.04.2006 and it is for the plaintiff to prove his case, dismissed the application. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and pemsed the order impugned. 8. The petition did not turn up seeking opinion ofhandwriting expert before closing ofher evidence. Moreover, it is for the plaintiffto prove his case by adducing cogent and clmching evidence. In view ofabove, I do not find any substance in the petition warranting interference of this court underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. 9. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its super^isory 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. 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. '>- Sd/- N. K. Agan/val Judge