-d •' ^ c; IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH •^11$^ W.P.NO.a;N':e /2003 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/22^ OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER ^^.] •d'^ .^- hW^ ^y RESPONDENT M/s. Khandelwal Dal Mill Dhamdha Road, Chikhali, Distt. Durg Registered Partnership firru Through Partner Shri Kishan Khandelwal, aged 50 years S/o. ShriRamdhan Khandelwal, R/o.infrontofPunjab National Bank, Station Road Durg (C.G.) VERSUS : C? Babulal Ashok Kumar Lunawat, HUF. Through Babulal Lunawat Aged 78years S/o. Late Moti Lal Lunawat, Tax consultant, R/o. StationRoad Durg (C.G.) XI-HC-22 7^ ^Tqiwr, ^•d')'yil(i, Kiiai'My ^ sn^t^ •fS;IR;3Ii^i %tiwafs?r gs>-~- \-J 'P2y.f:.ls.2>. •M 3ii%H ^snwafttT ' .03.3004 Smt Sudha Agrawal, couas^ fbr ttie petitioner. The pctitioner has preferred of fhe Constitution of India b^nig ^^rievcd by thc wdcr-dated 29.03.2003 passed by the leamejl 6A AddL Distnet Judge, Durg ia Civil Suit No.ll-B/2001 whcreb hereia for production ofthe docucjients was rqeeted. Brief facts teadn^ to fiBa^ filed a civil swt a^asast the Rs.2,38,000/-. In ParagrEyh 3 ofl firm by cheque against the intere! incntioned fhat whatcvcr amount Rs. 1,75,000/- are due against the Rs.72,000/- are due towards fhe i^iterest Written stateinent oa behall ^N?1*T •Wq?(f •? feist ^? aifigif an^i this wrtt petition under Article 227 the appUcation of the petittoner of fhis writ petitton arc that the respondent hcreia, who js a pratrticmg ]awycr on Inconie-tax sidc, twtitioaer hereia for recovay of plaiat it has been menttoiicd tfaat the respondent berein uscd to dejposit the money ia the petitioaer's it@ 12% p.a. It has bcen furtfaer is repaid by the iM-esait petitioner was also through chequcs and iill^inatety it has beea ineattaaed that pctitioner ^ principal amount and filed. Howcver, an applicatioa was pted by the petitioaier herein before the trial Court seeking direction agaiast thc respoiident hcTem to produce IUB iacomc-tax retura, a(]'coiint of interest received by hini aad fhe balaace shect for fhe peri^d Baaging between 01.04. 1987 to 31.3.2001, but tiic same was j?ejected by thc trial Conat vide impugned order dated 29.03.2003! not necessaiy for the just decisKaij cannot be directed to prodiice &es^ docuaients. of fhe petitioaer hereia bss becn holdixig that these docuaients are of the snit, therefore, (he pIaintifiF ^5[ ~i)|4||^4|, 't?ri!<H<|6, fsldl'yy s° sn^T?5T wan^i ai'tris5"gftcf a{:"!i..si^- - IIS.sSi 'f^-. 3D^r^a!WHft?T ^l^tcT'il-l tHlRff'? TST3t <f«l*riK iTari^TiTsn^T ^S.S' ^s.°< 'T'K I have heard lcamed coiinse|I for the pctitioner. Learacd counsel for fhc peljitfoiier submils that the trial Court has decided fhe application withc^ut giving opportuaity of hearii^ to fhe petitioner aad naoreover, doci^incnts filcd ia suiqwrt offhc plaint by the respondent are handwrittei^ and thcy are not in proper form. As far as &e question of ptegatily in the impugned ordcr is concemed; as mentioncd abovc, t(ie respondcnt herein filed a suit for recoveiy of fhe principal amount ^id interest fhcreon aid it has been incntioned fhat afl the aiaount ^yas ad'waa.ced by way of chcques, fhus, fhe sult is bascd on the c^icques givcn by tfac plaintiff to the present petitionea-; therefore, I amj of fhe opinion that fhc tenl Court has not conunitted any illegalllyj or irregularily wtute rejecting fhe appUcation oftfae petitfoncr herei4 for producmg fhe documeiits. As far as fhe question fhat the xcspondcnt hercin is doing fhe business of m.oney lendnig is c^ncemed fhat issue can bc raised before the trial court aad tnall court shaU decide the sanae in accordance with the law. ! In wiew of fhe above, I do jjwt find aay substence in this writ petition, wliich is liable to be disn^issed and is disxnissed. Howcver, ia wiew of fhe su^aiisaon made by leamed counsel for the petitioner fhat without ghpi^ any opportunUy of hearing tbe trial Court has rejected fhe a^plication filed for pBoduction of documents; it js expected fhat in |futiuie bcfore pasaing any oider fhc trial Coait wffl give pioper opporhjmity ofhearing to tiae petitioiicr. With fhe aforesaid dlrectaonj the petitwn staads dteposcd. Certified copy as per Rutes. L.C. Bhadoo Judge