Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Durga Sonar S/o Hazari Sonar @ Hazari Swarnakar – Petitioner
Versus
Prahlad Kumar Burman – Respondent
C.M.P. No. 370 of 2024
Decided On : 20-01-2025
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 1A - Quashing of order rejecting documents in partition suit - The court emphasized that the admissibility of documents is a matter for trial, and denying a party the opportunity to file documents can lead to denial of justice. (Paras 5, 6)
(B) Justice and Procedure - The rules of procedure are meant to serve justice, and the trial court should impose costs rather than outright deny document production due to delay. (Paras 5, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to introduce documents related to a partition suit involving family members, which were initially rejected by the trial court on grounds of admissibility and lack of diligence.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the petition, set aside the trial court's order, and permitted the introduction of documents, emphasizing the importance of justice over procedural technicalities.
Issues: The main issues were the admissibility of the documents in the partition suit and the implications of denying their introduction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that procedural rules should facilitate justice, and the trial court should allow document submission with appropriate costs rather than outright rejection.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the Opposite party nos.1 to 5.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 04.12.2023 whereby the petition filed under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC in Original Suit No. 79 of 2017 has been rejected by the learned court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents are necessary for deciding the partition suit. He submits that the petitioner and defendants are own brothers and gift deed, photocopy of the affidavit and the deed of agreement has been sought to be brought on record and the learned court has been pleased to reject the same.
4. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite parties nos. 1 to 5 submits that there is no whisper in the written statement of the defendant about the said gift deed and that gift deed is not registered and in view of that it is not admissible. He further submits that the affidavit is a notary public affidavit which is also not admissible. He submits that by way of only entering into an agreement, right, title and interest cannot be transferred to anybody. He submits that in view of that the learned court has rightly passed the order. He submits that the due diligence is also lacking in the case.
5. It is an admitted position that the said documents are relating to the property which are the subject matter of the partition suit and if such a situation is there, admissibility of the said documents can be subject matter of the trial. The relevance of which can be examined by the learned trial court on the basis of the evidence to be led by the, but to deprive a party to the suit not to file any document even if there is some delay that will lead to denial of justice. It is well settled that the rules of procedure is hand made of justice and therefore even if there is some delay the trial court should have imposed some cost rather than to decline the production of the document itself.
6. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The order of the learned trial court dated 04.12.2023 is set aside.
7. The petitioner-defendant/ sole defendant is permitted to file the document and prove the same in accordance with law.
8. The plaintiff/ respondents shall be permitted to lead additional evidence if any on the basis of documents now produced by the defendant.
9. This order is subject to cost of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) to be paid to the plaintiff.
10. The learned court will proceed with the said suit in accordance with law.
11. This petition is allowed in the above terms and disposed of.
Procedural rules should facilitate justice; denying document submission in a partition suit can lead to injustice.
Due diligence must be established for producing additional evidence in appellate proceedings; the failure to show diligence results in application rejection.
Suit for Perpetual/Permanent Injunction – Partition deed can be relied upon to the extent of collateral purpose, subject to payment of stamp duty, penalty, and proof of relevancy.
Section 77 of Evidence Act enables production of certified copies of public documents in proof of contents of such public document.
The court upheld the trial court's discretion to allow additional evidence, emphasizing that the absence of notice under Section 66 of the Evidence Act does not invalidate the introduction of seconda....
A memorandum of partition acknowledging pre-existing rights does not require registration, distinguishing it from a deed of partition that creates new rights.
Unregistered documents can be admissible for collateral purposes in partition suits, subject to payment of stamp duty and proof of relevance.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
