Shambhu Narayan Rai v. Tej Narayan Rai And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.678 of 2014 ====================================================== Shambhu Narayan Rai son of Manrajan Rai, resident of village-Kanehri, PSRajpur, District-Buxar. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Tej Narayan Rai & Ors ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4280 of 2014 ====================================================== Tej Narayan Rai son of Brahmdeo Rai (natural father Manrakhan Rai), resident of village- Kanehri, P.S.- Rajpur, District Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Shambhoo Narain Rai & Ors ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 678 of 2014) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ashwini Kumar Rai For the Respondent/s :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4280 of 2014) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Ashwini Kumar Rai ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 28-11-2018 These two writ applications have been filed for quashing the order dated 27.09.2013 passed by Sub-Judge V, Buxar in Title Suit No. 49 of 2000. The learned court below as per impugned order rejected the petition filed by both the parties and fixed the suit for argument.
2. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondents.
3. Petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 678 of 2014 is plaintiff and
Patna High Court CWJC No.678 of 2014 dt.28-11-2018 2/3 petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 4280 of 2014 is defendant in the aforesaid suit.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.678 of 2014 has submitted that the suit has been filed for declaration of deed of adoption as forged and fabricated. In course of trial, the petitioner obtained information from the Headmaster of high school under Right to Information Act. The said document was not within the knowledge of plaintiff and so he filed a petition to reopen his case for adducing evidence for getting the said document exhibited.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.4280 of 2014 has submitted that on the date fixed for evidence of defendants, a time petition was filed, but as nobody appeared to press the time petition and so the evidence was closed. Defendants have examined only few witnesses and they are formal in nature. The defendant of the suit has also not been examined and so he has seriously been prejudiced.
6. On going through the documents on record, I find that in order to prove the case, the petitioner-plaintiff filed some document which was obtained from the school under Right to Information Act. The document appears essential for appreciating the facts involved in the suit. The evidence of
Patna High Court CWJC No.678 of 2014 dt.28-11-2018 3/3 defendants also appears necessary in order to bring on record some oral and documentary evidence of the defendants.
7. In view of above discussions and for the ends of justice, the impugned order refusing to reopen the case as per impugned order dated 27.09.2013 is set aside and both the writ application are allowed with a direction to the court below to give an opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. (Sanjay Kumar, J) mkchy/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 30.11.2018 Transmission Date N/A