ingle Bench : Humble:MnJustieePritinkenmwakerv Writ Petitian 227), Na. 5364:0fr2n05: PETITIONER Defemialu‘‘ Through Municipal;. : Corporation The Cammis‘smer,‘ Raigarh DistrictR’aégarh-(Chhattis rh)’ Versus.” Piairitiff" ' RESPONDENT! Ajay Agrawai; Slaw Brijmohan., Agrawai, RIO Dani Para Rawam,’ District Raigam. (Chhattisgarh) Shn‘ B,D..,.Gutur.counseLfor the petitianer; _ Shri Saniay K. Agrawai,,comseif6rrespu‘ndent ' RIT PETITIONVUNHER:AR‘HCLEz' OE THEQ ' oaoen. w (28.94.2099) ~ With tha consent of _the-paxties%.mattems:heard finaily. 2., Challenge; in this writ. petition is to the, order. datew 12.05.2005 passedby ThirdAdditianaLDistrict Judgsi Raigami in. ~ CiviiSuit N0; 31 312001 (Annexure?Pl1)‘ by whichtheudefence of, the petitioner has-been ditectediahestru¢koff on account of nan, compiianoe at the order dated 28.072008. 3. Brief facts‘ofv thercase' are-that, in, a suit filedxby the respondent/piaintiff for recovery, an, application was. fitedhy the { piaintiff under Order 11 Rule. 16V otthexGodeof Civii Procedure and the-said.applicationxwas ailowedrvide order- dated 28.7.2003; . Thisorder oftheitrial Courtwas unsuccessfuuy ohaiienged..b,y,the petitioner/defendant, by filing-writ petition No.31 54l2003. decided on 15.11.2003. After the ahove order of the writ petition, respondent/plaintiff tiled: anapplication under Order 1‘1 Rule 21 of. i i i i c i i i Municipet Corporation. Raigarh, S W zz the Code of CM! Procedure. in compliénce of the earlier order dated 28.7.2003, of the trial Court. By the order impugned, this. ~ application of the plaintiff has been allowed and the court below has struck off the defence of the petitioner/defendant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Municipal Corporation submits that vide order, dated 28.07.2003 petitioner was directed to produce, certain documents but as some of the documents were not available with the petitioner, the same couid‘ not be produced and to,this effect, an aftidavit was flied by the petitioner before the trial Court on 1 6.1 2.2003 (Annexure~P/7). According‘to counsel for the petitioner the said, documents are not, available .l with the Municipal Corporation and the same cannot be produced, therefore, the order impugned cannot beeustained 5. Learned counsel for the respondent supporting the order impugned submits that the order dated 2812003 hasrattained finality and the petitioner is stopped from saying that documents - as directed to be produced, are not with the petitioner. He, further submits that the, order dated» 1205,2005 is a consequence of nonpompliancel of the earlier order dated, 2&072003 and therefore, in this writ petition, the petitioner is not entitledtfor any relief. He further submits that even in the affidavit dated 16.12.2003 (Annexure-PH), it has notbeen specifically adverted. by the petitioner that any efforts were made, to search the . documents and the documents could not be traced. Statement in paragraph 4 of'the said affidavit is that, "documents are not available and the 'departmentai enquiry is contemplated against the concerned employee of the Corporationf'. He further submits that two. identical, suits. were med by the raspondent/plaintiff claiming almost similar relief and the similar order was passed, on 12.05.2005 in Civil Suit, No. 53/2004 striking out thedefence of the petitioner/defendant. The order dated 12.5.2005 was challenged by the petitioner before. this Court in W.P. No. 5873/2005 and the said writ petition was, dismissed at themotion stage itself on 12.122005. He further submits that no different view can be taken byrthis, Court; once similar order has been upheld in Writ Petition No.5873/2005t7 6. Having. heard learned counsel for the parties, thisCourt is of the considered opinion that in passing the imougned order no material irregularity has been committed by the court below There Is no error apparent on the face of the record calling for an Interference With the impugned order. 7. Acoordingly,_the petition being without substance is liable“ to be dismissed and it is herebydismissed. 8. No order as to costs. 3d,- / Pritinker Diwaker Judge