1 CGHC010331302026 2026:CGHC:39882- DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1139 of 2026 Malkeet Singh S/o Late Shri Pritam Singh Aged About 48 Years (Age Not Mentioned In Impugned Order) R/o Near Ekta General Store And Daily Needs In Front Of Bathena Hospital Janta Lodge Parisar Distt- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Shamshur Raza S/o Late Shri Haji Abdul Habib Khan Aged About 39 Years R/o Risai Para Ward Distt- Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Mohammad Raza Khan S/o Late Shri Haji Abdul Habib Khan Aged About 37 Years R/o Risai Para Ward Distt- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Saumya Sharma, learned Advocate, appears through video conferencing. For Respondents : None present. Hon'ble Mr. Krushna Ram Mohapatra , Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Santosh Sharma , Judge Order on Board Per : Krushna Ram Mohapatra , Chief Justice 11.09.2026 1. Petitioner, in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks to assail the order dated 23.07.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by 2 the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) [for short, ‘The Tribunal’ ] in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 13 of 2026, whereby an application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, ‘CPC’) filed by opposite party / respondents has been allowed. 2. Heard. 3. Ms. Saumya Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that opposite parties filed an application under the provisions of Rent Control Act, 2011 for eviction of the petitioner. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he is not the tenant under the respondents. At a stage, when the hearing of the case was about to commence and evidence is to be led, an application under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC was filed by the respondents for production of certain documents for proper adjudication of the case. 4. Objection to the said application was also filed. Without taking note of the fact that the application under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC was filed at a belated stage and that the documents were not relevant for proper adjudication of the case pending before the Tribunal, application was mechanically allowed. She, therefore, prays for setting aside the order under Annexure A/1. 5. In the course of hearing, Ms. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, submits that the issue involved in the present case has already been set at rest by this Court in Writ Petition (227) No. 62 of 2025 and batch of cases, disposed of on 21.01.2025 relying upon the case of Ashok Choudhary vs. Gwalior Dairy Ltd. And others, reported in 2017 SCC OnLine MP 1955 and other case laws. Those could not be brought to 3 the notice of the Tribunal at the time of adjudication of the application filed under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC. It was also not brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the respondents did not assign any reason for production of those documents at a belated stage and how those are relevant for proper adjudication of the case. She, therefore, prays for withdrawal of the writ petition seeking liberty to file an application for recall of the order impugned herein under Annexure P/1 by stating those grounds. 6. This Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the submissions made by learned counsel for the Petitioner, disposes of the Writ Petition (227) of the Constitution of India with an observation that the petitioner, if so advised, may file an application for recall of the order dated 23.07.2026 (Annexure P/1) within a period of seven days, and in that event, the said application shall be considered on merits giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Sd/- Sd/- (Santosh Sharma) (Krushna Ram Mohapatra) Judge Chief Justice AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.09.15 10:40:39 +0530