INTHE HON’BLE HIGH COURyF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR, Writ Petition 227 No. U9 of 2011 PETITIONER (Defendant No. 1) /:' Sudama Sonkar aged about 60 years, ' S/o Nanda Sonkar, R/o Nandai, Sonkarpara, Tah. And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS Gangdev Sonkar aged about 6Q'yegs, S/o Nanda Sonkar, R/o Nandai, Sonkarpara, Tah. And Dism'ct Rajnandgaon (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Defendant No.2) Through- Collector, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) RESPONDENTS G’laintiff) RESPONDENTS ( WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 9? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 1203 of 2011 : Sudama Sonkar Versus : Gangdev Sonkar & another RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri Rakesh Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. u " ORAL ORDER (Passed on 07.03.201 1) 1. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 25.10.2010, \\ passed by the Ilnd Civil Judge, Class 'II, Rajnandgaon, in Civil Suit No. 85—A/09, whereby the petitioner’s application filed under Order 8 Rule 1(A) ofCPC for taking documents on record was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and injunction. According to plaintiff; the defendant has no right of way over’the suit property. 3. The defendant, by filing written submission, denied the above contentions and had submitted/during partition between the parties the above land was reserved for Nistar i.e. right of way was given to l the defendant over the suit property. 4. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1(A) of CPC for taking documents on record i.e. partition slip. According to the petitioner, the above document is relevant for the purpose ofjust decision of this case. The petitioner could not $6 the above document at an earlier point of time as the same was in the record of revenue authorities. The trial court, by order impugned, dismissed the said application, holding as per petitioner’s written statement partition did not take place by the partition slip. Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and having perused the order impugned, in the considered opinion of this court, the document, being relevant, ought to have taken in record by the trial court. The partition between the parties took place based on partition slip or otherwise is a question to be decided by the trial court after recording evidence of the parties. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Accordingly, impugned order dated 25.10.2010 is set aside. The trial court is directed to take above documents on record and thereaiter shall proceed with the matter on its own merits in accordance with law. No order asto costs. Since this petition is heard in the absence of respondents, they are hee to move with an appropriate application, if aggrieved. Sd/— N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu