IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'I—I'ISGARH AT BIKASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (227) No. 39’ OF 2010 PETITIONER Defendant Smt. Parmeshwari Bai, aged about 62 years, W/o Hariram- Mahavar, R/o Sunderganj Ward Near . Bathena Hospital, Dhamtari (C.G.) ESPONDENT Plaintiff Anil Agrawal, S/o R.L. Agrawal, aged ‘ about .40 years, R/o Bastar Road, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF R W INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHAW$GARH AT EILASPUR Singh Bench: Hon’hle shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition i 227) N0.93‘! 5 zirw Smt. Pawneshwari Eai Versus PETmONER Eefendant RESPONBENT Anil Agrawa! Pxaintiff Shr§ RP. Sahu, nounsa my the petitiuner. WRIT PETiTiDN UNDER ARTISLE 22? OF THE £0NSTITiJTl0N %}F lNDiA aRALeaaaa {09.a3.2mo; Heard an admi$si0m {2} In a suh for specific permmaace 3f cantract thg !eamed trial Sourt has anowed khe piaintm’s applicat‘mn tmder Order 7 Rute 14(3) a? CFC permitting him ta me same mare ducuments; to pmve his Ease in the tmt. ’ (3) Caunse! far the pet§tioner 5ubmits that there i$ m pkeadEng with regam to the documentS mw $ought i9 be intradaced by the piainmf and therefore the application 3hould not have been auowed‘ He ai$g submits ihat the de€endant haS been denied his right Ea {aise suiiabie defense in hie wr§tten statement qua the decument new seugm £0 be introduced and as each he she“ euiffer adverseiy in defending me euit. {4} The ma! Geurt, in the impugned order, has ebserved mat piea‘dingeere avaelabke m para 11 sf the plaint and that the doeumeme are submitted at the stage where evidenee ef ihe pamee have net yet e commenced. The trial Cone has alee reserved e right fer the ieiefeiidant mat he can submit erai er documentary evidence in febutiai. \ x ‘J g5) m View of reasaning assigned by the trial (3mm for aiiowéng maintiff‘s application undet Order 7 Rule 14 (3} 3f C.P.C. ihis Cami; does not find any apparent or manifest ermr in exercise cf jwrisdiciimn by ihe triaE Court, however if the petitioner ihinks ihat his {ight 9f gai3§ng a defenSe has been prejudice, he shalt be at liberty to move an application fer‘ amendment of the written statement. if any, such applieation is tiled, the learned trial Court shali decide the same in accerdance with iaw and keeping in View the intreductien of same more decuments by the plaintiff just before commencement 0f evidence. (6) With thie observation, the writ petition is diemissed. i Sd//— Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ,‘m