NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP227 No. 579 of 2019 Gulam Usman Khan (Dead) Through Legal Heirs :-
1. Gulam Kadar S/o Late Gulam Usman Khan Aged About 54 Years R/o Urla, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Gulam Dastagir Khan S/o Late Gulam Usman Khan Aged About 48 Years R/o Urla, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners/Plaintiffs Versus
1. Akram Khan Aged About 53 Years R/o Near Nayapara Masjid, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Mohammad Aslam Khan S/o Akram Khan Aged About 36 Years R/o Near Nayapara Masjid, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Gulam Arif Khan S/o Late Gulam Usman Khan, Aged about 46 years, R/o Village Urla, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Planintiff No. 3)
5. Smt. Shabnam Begum W/o Salim Khan Aged About 56 Years D/o Late Usman Khan, Aged about 56 years, R/o Village Urla, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Planintiff No. 4)
6. Ku. Bilkis Begum D/o Late Usman Khan Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Urla, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.(Planintiff No. 5)
7. Ku. Shabana Begum D/o Late Usman Khan Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Urla, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.(Plaintiff No. 6)
---- Respondents/Defendants For Petitioners : Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate For State : Ms. Shivali Dubey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
24/07/19
1. By the impugned order dated 25/06/2019 passed in Civil Suit No. 20-
A/2010, learned First Civil Judge Class – I, Raipur has rejected the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for summoning the Sub-Registrar along with the relevant records in order to prove the sale deeds dated 20/07/1959 and 24/03/1942.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that a doubt qua the sale deeds, had been created during the examination and re- examination of defendants' witness on 07/03/2019 that has necessitated the filing of the application by the petitioners/plaintiffs, which has been rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground of delay.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, considered his submissions and went through the records.
4. Taking into consideration that earlier, the petitioners/plaintiffs sale deeds dated 20/07/1959 and 24/03/1942 were allowed to be exhibited, but then on 07/03/2019, during the cross-examination of defendants' witness, a doubt had been created regarding the admissiblity of those two sale deeds, it would be expedient to permit the petitioners/plaintiffs to summon Sub-Registrar / any other competent officer from his office, along with the relevant records to prove those documents, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/- to the private respondents. It is ordered accordingly.
5. Learned trial Court is directed to call the concerned officer along with the relevant records on payment of process fee without any unnecessary delay and without adjourning the matter.
6. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India stands disposed of.
7. Certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for compliance and needful.
C.C. today.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.