Chaina Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.935 of 2018 ====================================================== 1.

Chaina Devi wife of Dinesh Prasad Singh resident of Mohalla- Line Par Mierzapur, P.S. and District- Nawada.

2.

Basanti Devi wife of Baleshwar Prasad Singh resident of Mohalla- Line Par Mierzapur, P.S. and District- Nawada.

3.

Manoj Ram @ Manoj Singh resident of Mohalla- Line Par Mierzapur, P.S. and District- Nawada.

4.

Kiran Devi wife of Munna Singh resident of Mohalla- Line Par Nawada, P.S. and District- Nawada.

5.

Muni Devi wife of Uttam Singh resident of Village- Dhamaul, P.S.- Hasua, District- Nawada.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Collector-Cum District Magistrate, Nawada, at P.S. and District- Nawada.

2.

The Anchal Adhikari, Nawada at Anchal Office- Nawada, P.S. and DistrictNawada. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 08-09-2022 Heard the parties.

2. By the impugned order dated 22.05.2018 passed in Title Appeal No. 09/2015 the learned District Judge, Nawada has rejected the prayer of the petitioners to mark Hukumnamas produced by them as exhibit.

3. Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are appellants in the lower appellate court and the Hukumnamas produced by them

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.935 of 2018(4) dt.08-09-2022 2/2 was marked as 'X' and 'X/1' for identification, however, the appellants have deposited impounding fee of Rs. 2,321/- through civil Chalan, as such both the Hukumnamas ought to have been marked as exhibits by the learned lower appellate court.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the Hukumnamas produced by the appellants are not the public documents.

5. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned lower appellate court has refused to mark the Hukumnamas as exhibits on the ground that these are not the public documents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to show any provision that the Hukumnamas are the public documents.

7. Accordingly, I do not find any irregularity in the order impugned. The application stands dismissed. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U