Bachchan Choubey v. Dindayal Dubey @Ramdayal Dubey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15960 of 2010 =========================================================== Bachchan Choubey Son of late Satram Choubey Resident of Village- Bhaghini Kala, P.S. Mohania, District- Kaimur at Bhabua. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Dindayal Dubey @ Ramdayal Dubey S/O Late Ramnath Dubey R/O Vill Bhaghini Kala, P.S. Mohania, Distt-Kaimur At Bhabua
2. Kamalakar Choubey, son of Late Shriram Choubey, resident of villageBhaghini Kala, P.S. Mohania, District-Kaimur at Bhabua.
3. Prabhakar Cboubey, son of Late Shriram Choubey, resident of village-Bhaghini Kala, P.S. Mohania, District-Kaimur at Bhabua
4. Most. Dhanraji Kuer Wife of late Shri Ram Choubey Resident of VillageBhaghini Kala, P.S. Mohania, District- Kaimur at Bhabua. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. RAJANI KANT PANDEY, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. None.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 20-08-2018 Petitioner before this Court is defendant no.4 of Title Suit No.324 of 1999 pending in the Court of Sub Judge-II, Kaimur at Bhabua. He has filed this application for quashing the order dated 13.05.2009 whereby and whereunder the court below refused to admit the documents filed by the petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. It appears that the respondent no.1 filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of his title over the land mentioned in schedule given at the foot of the plaint. In course of trial, the petitioners filed some document as per list on 27.05.2008, i.e., before closing the evidence
Patna High Court CWJC No.15960 of 2010 dt.20-08-2018 2/3 of plaintiff. The petitioner filed a petition on 17.03.2009 to mark the said documents as exhibits which has been rejected.
4. It has been submitted that the said documents were misplaced and he filed the same immediately at the stage when the evidence of plaintiff was going on. From Anexure-2, it appears that the petitioner had filed copy of Revisional Survey Khatiyan, rent receipts, Register-2 and some other documents. According to the petitioner some of the documents are public documents and some are 30 years old and all the documents are admissible in evidence. The only grievance of the plaintiff/respondent is that on account of accepting those documents in evidence, the plaintiff would be seriously prejudiced as they would not get chance of rebuttal. The court below accordingly dismissed the said petition.
5. On perusal of impugned order, I find that the documents were already on record before closing the evidence of plaintiff. The petition for marking the documents was filed after closing the evidence of plaintiff. It further appears that as per claim of petitioners, some of the documents are public documents and some are 30 years old.
6. In view of submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and also for the ends of justice, the impugned order refusing to accept the documents in evidence is set aside subject to
Patna High Court CWJC No.15960 of 2010 dt.20-08-2018 3/3 payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent/plaintiff before the court below. The court below is directed to give a chance of rebuttal to the respondent/plaintiff if he desires.
7. This application is accordingly allowed. (Sanjay Kumar, J) B.Kr./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 24.08.2018 Transmission Date N/A