Satyendra Singh v. Krishna Kant And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1373 of 2016 ====================================================== Satyendra Singh Son of Late Ram Nandan Singh, resident of VillageSatparsa, Police Station- Dhanarua, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Krishna Kant and Ors 2.

Krishna Kumar, Both sons of Late Ram Nandan Prasad Singh @ Ramjee Babu, resident of Village- Station Road, Mashaurhi, Police StationMashaurhi, District- Patna at present at Mohalla- Hanuman Tikari Police Station- Deoghar, District- Deoghar, State of Jharkhand. 3.

Bina Devi, Wife of Nityanand Singh, resident of Village- Adharpur, Police Station- Teghra, District- Begusarai.

4.

Kanti Devi, Wife of Vachaspati Rai, resident of 29 Nandi Bagan, Salkia Howrah, State of West Bengal.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kamlesh Kumar Sharma For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Avinash Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2. The present Civil Miscellaneous application has been filed against the order dated 28.10.2016 passed by learned Sub-Judge-II, Patna in Title Suit No. 391 of 1986 by which certain documents on behalf of defendant has been admitted in evidence at the fag end of the trial.

3. From perusal of entire evidence as well as petition filed on behalf of defendant, it transpires that there is no mention of any specific document regarding which the impugned order has been passed. So, the impugned order is

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1373 of 2016(15) dt.15-12-2025 2/2 cryptic one and it does not disclose the name and nature of the document which has been admitted in the evidence.

4. In this circumstance, the matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court to to pass a detailed and reasoned order afresh. An opportunity must be given to the opposite party to rebut or controvert those documents if any document is admitted in evidence of the defendant.

5. Accordingly, the instant application stands disposed of.

(S. B. Pd. Singh, J) Ankit Kumar/- U