HIGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition l C l No.103912008 PETITIONERS 1 Virendra Mah€shwari, Sjo Shri (PlaimjEs) Champa lal Maheshwari, aged about 38 years. Bhupendra Mahcshwari, S/o Shri Champa Lal Maheshwan', aged about 43 years. 3 Shailendra Maheshwari, S/o Shri Champa Lal Mahsshwari, aged about 32 years. 4 Yougendra Maheshwari, S/o Shn' Champa Lal Maheshwari, aged about 32 years, A11 Resident of Gudhiyan' Padaw, Post—Gudhiyali, Thana — Tahsil &. District Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Miner Ku.‘ Shikha D10 Shn‘ Shyam (Defendants) Sunder Agrawal, aged about 14 years, Through Guardian Mother Smt. Shashi Agrawal, W/o Shn' Shyam Sunder Agrawal. Smt. Shashi Agmwal, W/o Shri Shyam Sunder Agrawal. ‘ Shyam Suuder Agrawal, S/o Not known, Respondent No.1 to 3 are Resident of Village Doundekhurd, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) 4 Champa Lal Maheshwari, S/o Shn' Kishan Maheshwari, aged about 73 years, Resident of Gudhiyari Padaw, Post Gudhiyari, Thana—Tahsil 8n District Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA gearance : Shri R.S. Patel, Counsel for the petitioners. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State on advance copy. A 2 W.P.(C) No. 1039/2008 ORAL ORDER 120.02.20081 SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. LA. No.01 Heard. This is an application for amendment in the cause title. The application is allowed. Let necessary amendment be incorporated within 7 days. W.P.(C) No.1039i2008 Heard on admission; The petitioners, who are plaintj£fs, have filed this writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the validity of the order dated 1 1. 10.2007 passed by the 9th Additional Distn‘ct Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in C.S. No. 10-A/ 2007. It appears that by the said order, an application filed by, the petitioneis under Older 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by the trial Court and the matter was fixed for tiling of the Written statements of the defendants. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that defendant No.4 is the father of the plaintiifs and when he was not well, he was shown to the Doctors and the prescriptions issued by the Doctors were filed by the plaintiffs along with the list, which they had not hled at the time of presentation of the suit. He submits that by the said documents, the plaintiifs wanted to establish that defendant No.4 was not in a fit mental condition, therefore, the sale deed executed by him in favour of other defendants was not in accordance with law. The trial Court after hearing the parties took the View that the documents filed were only the prescriptions, on which, it cannot be proved that defendant No.4 was a patient of mental illness or he was unable to understand his own welfare and on this ground, it has rejected the application nled by the plaintiffs. 3 Q3? _W.P.(C) No. 1039/2008 Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies It provides that where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plajnt is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. Sub—rule (2) provides that where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever, possible, state in whose possession or power it is. Sub-rule (3) provides that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plajnt but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. This clearly indicates that relevancy would be one of the elements while allowing a document tiled by the plaintjil‘ at the later stage and if the Court feels that the document is unnecessary, it may disallow the prayer for receiving the document filed by the plaintiff. In View of the above, I do not hnd any irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court. The petition is not worth admission and the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Certiiied copy of the order shall be supplied after the amendment is incorporated. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- Shyna