Hanuman Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Page No.1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(227) No. 776 of 2019 Hanuman Agrawal, S/o. Late Mamanchand Agrawal, Aged About 54 Years, R/o. Village Belgahna, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

2.

Ravindra Bajpai, S/o. Late Shiv Shankar Bajpai, Aged About 70 Years, R/o. Bhatiya Residency, Mangla, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3.

Shankarlal Joshi, S/o. Bhurelal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. Village Karhikachhar, Post Office Belgahna, Tahsil Kota, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

-----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Harshwardhan Jaiswal, Advocate For State/respondent : Mr. Sudip Verma, Dy.G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board 27/11/2019 1.

This petition has been brought being aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2019, passed by the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 150A/2015, by which the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C. of the petitioner/plaintiff has been dismissed by the trial Court.

2.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the reasons that the respondents/defendants have disputed the

Page No.2 statements of the petitioner that his brother Manoj Bajpai has no association in management of properties of the petitioner, therefore, to establish this fact that documents are necessary document proposed to be produced in support of his pleadings, therefore, petition be admitted.

3.

State counsel representing for respondent No.1 makes formal objection.

4.

On perusal of the document present in the petition it is found that the suit has been filed by the petitioner for specific performance of contract. The documents proposed to be filed do not have any direct bearing in the issue to be decided between the parties in the civil suit, however, if the, plaintiff feels necessary, the documents so proposed to be filed can be directly confronted to the witnesses of the defendants, if, the law permits it.

5.

Therefore, finding that documents proposed to be produced do not have any relevance in determination of the case, the petition is dismissed at motion stage.

Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Balram