Binod Singh @ Binod Kumar Singh v. Bharat Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.99 of 2021 ====================================================== Binod Singh @ Binod Kumar Singh S/o Rameshwar Singh Resident of Chakki Gopalpur Raja Bazar, Motiahri, East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Bharat Singh S/o Awadh Bihari Singh Resident of Gopalpur, Raja Bazar, Ward No.-34, P.S.-Town Motihari, District-East Champaran. 2.

Malti Devi W/o Baleshwar Singh Resident of Gopalpur, Raja Bazar, Ward No.-34, P.S.-Town Motihari, District-East Champaran. 3.

Madhuri Devi W/o Hari Ratan Singh, D/o Awadh Bihari Singh Resident of Sauhari, Lakhaura, Barwa, P.S.-Lakhaura, Distric-East Champaran. 4.

Ramdeo Singh S/o Permeshwar Singh Resident of Mohalla-Gopalur, Raja Bazar, Ward No.-34, P.S.-Nagar Motihari, Post-Motihari, District-Eat Champaran.

5.

Uday Singh S/o Permeshwar Singh Resident of Mohalla-Gopalur, Raja Bazar, Ward No.-34, P.S.-Nagar Motihari, Post-Motihari, District-Eat Champaran.

6.

Suman Singh S/o Permeshwar Singh Resident of Mohalla-Gopalur, Raja Bazar, Ward No.-34, P.S.-Nagar Motihari, Post-Motihari, District-Eat Champaran.

7.

Pramod Singh S/o Rameshwar Singh Resident of Mohalla-Gopalur, Raja Bazar, Ward No.-34, P.S.-Nagar Motihari, Post-Motihari, District-Eat Champaran.

8.

Dinesh Singh S/o Rameshwar Singh Resident of Mohalla-Gopalur, Raja Bazar, Ward No.-34, P.S.-Nagar Motihari, Post-Motihari, District-Eat Champaran.

9.

Meera Devi D/o Rameshwar Singh Residentof Vilalge-Pakhi, Sauhari, P.S.- Chaudadani, District-East Champaran.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Kamala Kant Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Kundan Rathore@ Kundan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 20-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated

2/4 17.12.2020 passed by learned Sub Judge IX, Motihari whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner seeking comparison of thumb impression of one Phool Devi on a document marked Exhibit A/1 and Exhibit B with some registered document containing the thumb impression of Phool Devi has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court passed the impugned order without assigning any reason and mentioning that the documents filed on behalf of the defendant no. 1/petitioner was a photocopy but the same is an error of record as Exhibit A/1 and Exhibit B are originals and not photocopies. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order could not be sustained.

4. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1. Learned counsel further submits that the application has been running at the stage of evidence of the defendants and still instead of concluding their evidence, the defendant no. 1 chose to file such application. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order needs no interference by this Court.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and

3/4 rival submission of the parties and from perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that the petitioner made a vague prayer before the learned trial court and sought for direction to the plaintiff that if he is having any registered document containing the thumb impression of Phool Devi to produce the same for comparison of the thumb impression. Unless the petitioner brings on record the details of such document containing the thumb impression of the lady Phool Devi and seek permission of the Court to get it compared with the thumb impression existing on Exhibit A/1 and Exhibit B, such prayer is meaningless. The petitioner could not ask the Court to pass orders without furnishing details of any such document.

So far as error of record is concerned, the petitioner ought to have moved before the Court for correction in the order with regard to the error which has crept in. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the learned trial court did not commit any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order dated 17.12.2020 and hence, the same does not need any interference by this Court and is affirmed.

6. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.

7. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the learned trial court with details of some document from which

4/4 the comparison of the thumb impression of the lady Phool Devi could be made and the learned trial court would consider such application in accordance with law.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) Anuradha/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 22.03.2025 Transmission Date N/A