Md. Chand v. Md. Mokhtar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.156 of 2016 ======================================================

1. Md. Chand S/o Late Iltaf Hussain, Resident of Vilage- Julfazal Road Buxar, Post- Buxar, P.S.- Toen, District- Buxar .... petitioner

Versus

1. Md. Mokhtar S/o Late Khalil Miyan

2. Nasima Khatoon D/o Md. Mokhtar Both R/o Village- Tukardhiya, P.S.- Buxar Mufassil, Post- Buxar, District- Buxar.

3. Md Nasruddin Kuraishi

4. Md Iqbal Kuraishi

5. Md. Ainuddin Kuraishi

6. Md Munna Kuraishi

7. Md Munai Kuraishi All 3 to 7 sons of Late Gani Kuraishi and resident of Village Gazipur (Town Hall), P.S.- Gazipur (Kotwali) District- Gajipur (U.P.)

8. Md Ekram

9. Ali Asgar

10. Sagir Ahmad All 8 to 10 sons of Late Abdul Qayum and resident of Village- Julfazal Road, Buxar, Post- Buxar, P.S.- Buxar Town, DistrictBuxar.

11. Md. Meraj

12. Md. Seraj

13. Md. Salim @ Mantu

14. Md. Eklakh

15. Meena

16. Bhuwari All 11 to 16 sons and Daughter of Late Iltaf Hussain, resident of Village- Julfazal Road, Buxar, Post- Buxar, P.S.- Buxar Town, DistrictBuxar .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Rai, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 28-11-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner filed this petition for quashing the order, dated 29.02.2016, passed by Sub Judge, I, Buxar, whereby the learned Sub Judge rejected the petition of the petitionerappellant to mark a public document, judgment and decree of a Court between the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the document is a public document, but, his petition

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.156 of 2016 (4) dt.28-11-2017 2/2 was rejected on the ground that the evidence of the petitioner has already been closed and petitioner did not file petition for allowing him to examine further evidence.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order does not require any interference.

I find that the learned Sub Judge, I, Buxar, while rejecting the petition of the petitioner to mark a public document as exhibits has committed jurisdictional error. The document is admitted one and in the aforesaid judgment plaintiff and defendant were party.

Accordingly, the order, dated 29.02.2016, is set aside. The learned Sub Judge, I, Buxar, is directed to pass order on the petition of the plaintiff and get the documents marked in accordance with law.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) SA/- U √