IN THE HIGH COURTOF CHHATISGARH JUDICA- TURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.l WRIT PETmON^li NC??* (0/2010 PETITIONERS PLAINITIFFS -( ^' RESPONDENTS DEFENDENTS f!-"'^i^/> ^f^^y ^•:^"/.-/ •?<<i'.&•••" <»•' (1) Milaridas aged about 77 Years S/o Rambharosh Manikpuri (2) Amoldas aged 63 years (Dead) S/o Rambharosh Manikpuri Both R/o of Mangla Bilaspur Tah. 8s Distt. BUaspur (C.G.) VERSUS (1)' (2)~ (3T (5) (6) Chliedinbai Aged about 46 years Widow of RamkhUawan manikpuri R/o Samalpur Tah.Takhatpur ; Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Argundas aged 46 years S/o Ramldiilawan Madandas aged 44 years S/o Ras-ikhilawan Mohandas aged 42 years S/o Ramkhilawan Kashidas aged 39 years S/o Rainkhilawaji Ku. Murti age6{37^ears ^~^°*" st\" ' , 11. D/o Ramkhilawari Miner through leagal Quardin Mother Chedinbai W/Q Ramkhilawan q^U ^r 3-^v^^ SSSMSrS^e- 'Sm^if^-y^fSlfh- %*2^ Gitai3aiWiaoworTSEHanM---<%^-,(6^e<-Sr!^' Manikpun aged 38 years Gzidd-ut a^ed 4 year&S/o Lakhanlal rainor fH"ugh Guardian Mother Gitabai No. 7 8s S R/o Lafagaim yah. Pali Distt Korba. —2— .* ^ Jiwanlalaged 54yeai-S/o Mahetar Yadav R/o Salampur Tah. Kakhatpur Distt. Bilaspur ^usha^SantosM Devi WifepfVyay "^T^1".:^^,' . ,: ! : ' Agrawalaged 39 years. KztSfaaltaged^lgjear.S/6\^ayKr;;^; ll^1M^^MS'EQu<sl^t»;Wfr Both R/6 C^ndMiamhi Tati. W Lorami at 'Present Mungeli Naka BilaspurTan. ^disttBilaspurC.G. sunil aged 39 x®ars^^a NatHmal Soru Rylp iNirala Nagar in the Side ^ of Bus Staiid Bilaspur C.Q. ^ Kegarani Sl.iiywanslli 38 year S/o " 'Rfo Salanipur Tali. Takhafpur DisttBilaspur(G.G.) State :gf GhhalEisgarK^ : ; ^'Througfi GblleGtor Bilaspl.tr(C.G.) • WRIIT^;:!PET'I^QN'::;lTN®tERl:.ALi^I(SI;E.^1.2^:ii:'OFsiT tfl 11 0; 12-ffi '--/: >:• CONSTIflFUTISON(aisiN®I®FiORJISS1^ 9. •ys" %. €% l,.?':^::t^8.B;^§EIiEm'MiiiS]^ ^^>)'l^:'%N0niMiliiMSSlSoglOiti^^ EETI'FSMSlKS -KEiSE©N®M^1'S gSlBffina^Sndjlin^ther'? ^::^ersus,,;:^^:;l,.':;';';:':.l ^3hh^nBJiatianffloffi )F!S :M@esra)ae^;^^.l:/,./';'' ?•.•':.'^S' '^I\'ii|:§l|miiRa<ffi®sfa?i^ij||@ugtaI|^ffl]a^|^^ :'Siui^a<NKi'el£affl|g^ai^|II|^g;ii['^EMK^;Sjt^e^r;:;,'?'^ :;ii'tsR ^»Ma!@iauESBM^a^aai3EEiS^®es :~.%lw;^SiaiBnBaaHISBHBBffiffCW^^^ T^^jtnat court Uas^ rejes^ ^unde^;.©^eTi::ljlJ';Rule^l6';(ffi;(%PC^ whichlaceordiag^itUeSJ3etttifli|[^ ':'; .(2)-^?, •1^;;defendan1s^iile^'{|||!r||ijp^^ ;fKat'.the^'origmal^®3py.^f:;'ti^ilagi^menty^^ :Sarpanefi^Mr;'Banna^an^,a^fi^::;'w}^^ ^have'tafcen^^'ba^.aai^^sueli|tli®<;)F^ ^:. ::^3^>:'.i7:0n,1:he/1sasis::.of^s|&iR||h&^|iaI^ ^;(rii£ation^ui)i^.©t^||SI:'^Ht|3S|^i®©^ll';:': ^ ;^^:^^Ini':1lie/£^injfi^oH|a&l|iSH|^ •1:hat'.the^0Ngmat;is,::a^^i]a;Wffi|^^ ;JfDF'^duction::;log^t^^^cii|i^aB|ec^^ ^gii^|B3ieii^is;|n®taliUtfisjiJ^I|i^E^o^ »- s •^ s^~ 9 (5) The other part of the impugned order has altowed the defendants application under section 65 ofthe Evidence Act to permit them to lead secondary evidence to prove the xerox notansedcopy of .the-agfeement..: :; ''. . •1;'"•..;•: ^, .,. :'.. (6) The trial cburt has obseryed that &om the afEdayif o£ Hamarayan it is prima facie proved th^^ of tlieldQcumeiit was m existence and ffiat fh^ cc^ avai^^ notorised copy which can only be done by the notary after tallying the photo eopy with the original, requirement Qfsection63aad 65jof Evidence Act is satisfied. (7) Leamed cpunset ibr (he peritioners faas reU Vs/ K. Sh<^a Ram (2007)^ 5 SGG:^^^^^^^ penmssiontoleadseGondaiyeyidemcecannotbegrantedoritheBaais .ofphQto copy. .. :;, : • : .; .. : ..' ' ,,•-/, • . ,• .•. 1 (8) In the present case, th^ copy availahle in the record u merely photo copy, but it is certified by the notary and thus^^A^ judgmentreliedbythe;petitionerisdistinguishable. i (9) No ease fbr iilterfereriee m exerci.ss cGpowers under A.rticle 227ofConstitutionofIiidiaisma.deout. " i (10) Cbnsequently, ttie instarit petition has, no substance and is dismissed. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge