c.•'.. c<\(/( k^i' Adv'ocatt N'£l IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILAPUR P^SO^- l^a^°*ss- PETITIONER8 DEF N0. 1 & 2 RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFFS ^-^^ ;^^-'^\ .^-^^" j",.^::.-'"^ ^"' W.P.NO. ^tsc)7 /2QQ4 1. Trilochan Pradhan, son of Dandhar Aged about 68 years, 2. Gautam Pradhan, son of Shri Dandhar aged about 63 years. Both are resident of village Sirko, P.H. No. 40, Tah and distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Swaraj Pradhan, son of Shri Radheshyam, aged about 53 years, 2. Swaroop Pradhan, son of Shri Radheshyam aged about 50 years 3. Divya Kumar Pradhan, son of Shri Radheshyam aged about 48 years. 4. Ravishankar Pradhan, son of Shri Radheshyam aged about 45 years. 5. Devendra Pradhan, son of Shri Radheshyam aged about 42 years, 6. Smt Sarojani Pradhan, wife of Shri Radheshyam aged about 75 years. —sT/ ]^^ Radheshyam Pradhan, son of Bimbadhar Pradhan, aged about 77 years. k" All are residents of village Sirko, PH No. 40, PO Sirko Tah and Distt. Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) RESPONDENT DEFENDANT N0.3 8. State of Chhattisgarh, through: The District Collector, Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. T XI-HC—78 ^Fff^r^T^fNr ^ff ^f^ $^^ti<sh WHytTS>»*11<5h '3%T -^i^Kn^, y>T{|^<i<o, fs|<rl|-y^< ^£^l'...^17./?..l..^200 ^1^?T TI^T (<jqf^<^) ^RTIW ^lf?H 3T^T 04W-2005 Shri Raghvendra Pradhan le^ Heard; The petifioner by the insti ^riexure P-1 passed; by the learnec of tfte petjtioners fiied under Order iBcorcJs: being^the revenue papers fc?een tBlxjsed ori the ground that £earned counsel fbr the annexure P-7 being the mutation decic|irig the interim application as as the certified copies of the Same | below has committed an itlegaiity v| that%e document is voluminous anfc) legible certified copiesj)f the said dcji Afier^aFSg'counse! fbr th^ passed|bythe^learned Civil Judge ^s per Order 13 Rule 10 of the CPC|; Court to send for the papers eith^i Tecprd and as such in the present c^ discretion by the learned Civil Judg| ^cbpy/of the desired document frorr| ground fo call fbr the record from t^€ V are not made available to the petitio| IFT Tn'R^ff ^F feEst <F»<^i< ^ 3?iRw 3?n^r rned counsel for the petitioners. inst^nt petition has challenged the order of Civil Judge Class II whereby the application f3 Rule 10 of the CPC for requisitioning the ike mLftation register pf annexure P-7 has the|same 1$ not practicable. jpetitioners submits that reqyisitioning of Iregister, is necessary for the purpose of ^ell as for adjudication of the case on merits |are not legible and therefore, learned Court thife rejecting the application on theground antJ further that the petitioners couid obtain the bument from the concerned Couri:. ^wia^ petitioner and peweteg the impugned order ;lass II under Order 13 Rule 10 of the CPC. the discretion is vested with the concerned from its ov»/n record or from any another |se 1 do not find any infirmity in exercising the as the petitioners could obtain the certified the concerned Court and this can not be a le other Court that the legibte certified copies lers. T 3?n^r'ap ftpyN? 1OTT 3H^T'SpqN? ^ 'S^t -^WW^, '^x[\W\<o, f®l<rtl-H^< w'f^' Tb^^/^ <ffH<P(T tb*l(<h ••^200 3TI^?T TRW (^ql^<i4) TRVTW ^ter 3T?^?r Under these circumstances,| order passed by the learned Civil Jj dismissed. Accordingly, the petition i^ 14>l^fd4l'1 "RTR^f ^f f^st <Fn^i< ^ 3TRyH 3?T^T 1 do not see any infirmity in the impugned idge Ciass II and the petition is liabie to be dismissed. ! Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge GRPRJ—FS/%—j?/200(—50,000. y.^ •<^ %^