1 2026:CGHC:25238 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 674 of 2026 Doman Lal Sahu, Kriparam Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o In Front Of Mahendra Tractor Showroom, Devpuri, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Loknath Sonkar S/o Late Taturam Sonkar Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Shitla Mandir Chowk, Bhathagaon, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 19/06/2026 1. Heard. 2. The present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.06.22 17:30:54 +0530 2 07.05.2026 passed by learned Fourth Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge (Senior Division), Raipur in Civil Suit No. 239B/2019, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the defendant before the learned trial Court and the plaintiff is prosecuting a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 8,22,500/- against the defendant with the pleading that the defendant had issued a cheque in favour of the plaintiff which was dishonoured by the payee bank. Earlier, the plaintiff has filed a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 3280/2016 which was decided by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 31.01.2024. In the present suit, the plaintiff has filed a certified copy of the acknowledgment purportedly issued by the defendant, the original copy of the said acknowledgment is available in the said Complaint Case No. 3280/2016. Since, the certified copy of the acknowledgment appears to be doubtful and manipulated, calling of the record of the said Complaint Case No. 3280/2016 is necessary to confront the certified copy of the said document with the original, therefore, he has filed an application under Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC. He would further submit that the calling of the record is necessary only to confront the document and without presence of the original document, certified copy cannot be confronted, yet the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner, by rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, the right of the defendant is prejudiced as he could not defend his case properly in absence of original copy of the said acknowledgment, on the basis of which the 3 case of the plaintiff is based, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner may be allowed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of the order passed by learned trial Court, it transpires that the defendant only raised suspicion over the certified copy of the acknowledgment which has been filed by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court and till date, no any document have been tendered in evidence and marked exhibit and the evidence of the plaintiff is yet to be started. The plaintiff is raising only a suspicion over the certified copy of the document and it is only his apprehension. The learned trial Court has also observed that the defendant is having ample opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff and to lead his own evidence, no prejudice is being caused to the defendant. The contents of the application filed by the petitioner under Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC states that the petitioner has denied the execution of the said acknowledgment and the plaintiff has intentionally filed the said original copy of the acknowledgment in the Complaint Case No. 3280/2016 and obtained the certified copy of the same to conceal its genuineness, therefore, he claimed that the original record is necessary to be called for. However, from the reply filed by the plaintiff, it transpires that in the Complaint Case No. 3280/2016, the petitioner who was the accused in the said complaint case, was convicted and sentenced for compensation of Rs. 6,50,000/- alongwith the interest at the rate of 9% per annum and also sentenced for R.I. for two months. The said judgment of conviction and sentence is under challenge 4 before the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur which is pending. Since the reply also disclosed that the learned trial Court has already considered the documents annexed with the complaint case, it cannot be said that the forged document has been submitted by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court in complaint case and only to get the trial of the case delayed, the defendant had filed the said application. 6. Considering the application and reply submitted by the plaintiff, the learned trial Court rejected the application, reserving the right of the parties to get the cross-examination of the witnesses of the parties and there is no necessity to call the original record. 7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is also of the opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC. The petitioner is at liberty to obtain certified copy of the said document from the record of Complaint Case No. 3280/2016 and can confront the same from the witnesses of the plaintiff, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order by the learned trial Court. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit