Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Arun Kumar Jha, J.
Sushil Jha and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Fudan Kumar Jha – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No.276 of 2024
Decided on 13.9.2024
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VIII Rule I-A(3) – Production of documents – Suit for recovery of possession of property and for mesne profit and for other reliefs – Rejection of application filed by defendants to file certified copies of registered deed of sale and copies of revenue records on the ground that said documents were always available and could have been obtained even earlier by defendants – Every party should get opportunity to lead his best evidence – Document which defendants failed to produce when written statement was presented, said document could not be received in evidence without leave of Court – When there is specific case of defendants that some exchange has taken place due to oblique running of land and there has been carving out of different new Revisional Survey plots out of old Cadastral Survey plots, defendants have right to bring evidence in support of their claim and said claim could not be rejected in limine – Documents which are sought to be brought on record are to be necessarily proved in accordance with law – But refusal to entertain application for bringing such document/evidence on record does not appear to be a correct approach on part of trial court – Relevance of documents could be examined by trial court on the basis of evidence to be led but a party could not be deprived to file documents even at later stage of trial – Defendants permitted to file documents and to prove the same in accordance with law. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 16)
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT (CAV)
The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 10.01.2024 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st, Pupri, Sitamarhi in Title Suit No. 38 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the application filed by the defendants/petitioners under Order VIII Rule I-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”) was rejected.
2. The conspectus of the case is that the petitioners are defendants in Title Suit No. 38 of 2019 filed by the plaintiff/ respondent for recovery of possession of part of survey Plot No. 1226 having an area of 1300 sq. link (Kari), situated in the Village-Adhgaon, Hanuman Nagar, Post Office-Saura, Anchal and Police Station-Nanpur, District-Sitamarhi from the defendants petitioners and for mesne profit and for other reliefs. It transpires that the plaintiff has filed the suit claiming that he is the owner of above noted suit land and has got the land is his share after partition among his ancestors and brother. His brother has built his house on his share in Khata No. 479, Khesra No. 1226 from south side and he also constructed his house in the year 1987 on the part of the aforesaid land from south side and kept the land vacant from the north side. The defendants encroached upon the land demolishing the pillars and beams erected over the suit property by the plaintiff and also demolished the temporary house built by uncle of the plaintiff on Khesra No. 1224 and built a wall on the aforesaid plots. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement controverting the claim of the plaintiff. One of the contentions in the written statement of the defendants is that the ancestors of the defendants had title and possession over C.S. Plot Nos. 509 and 508 and corresponding plots are Revisional Survey Plot Nos. 1225 and 1224, respectively. However, C.S. Plot Nos. 508 and 509 were running obliquely in the north east direction and likewise the northern ridge of C.S. Plot No. 505 was obliquely running somewhat in the north east direction and there was difficulty in the construction of straight walls being constructed by ancestors of both the parties. So the ancestors of the defendants gave ½ decimal of south western portion of the C.S. Plot No. 508 to ancestors of plaintiff and in lieu thereof, the ancestors of the plaintiff had given 9 links wide and 25 links long land from north eastern portion of C.S. Plot No. 505 i.e., northern portion of R.S. Plot No. 1226 to the ancestors of the defendants in exchange and accordingly, the ancestors of both the parties of the suit had been coming into possession with perfect title thereon. Thus, the defendants claimed their title and possession over the suit land of Plot No. 1226 on the basis of oral exchange. It has also been submitted that south western portion of C.S. Plot No. 508 given in change to the ancestor of the plaintiff has been included in the map of R.S. Plot Nos. 1227 and 1184 recorded in the names of ancestors of the plaintiff and they have constructed house over the said portion of C.S. Plot No. 508.
3. The defendants filed a petition on 08.11.2023 under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of the Code for permission to produce the comparative case map of C.S. Plot Nos. 508 and 509 and their corresponding R.S. Plot Nos. with the help of R.S. and C.S. map and report prepared by the Survey Knowing Advocate and for recording the evidence of the said witnesses to prove the comparative case map and report. A reply to the said application was filed on 22.11.2023. After hearing the parties, the learned Sub Judge 1st, Pupri rejected the petition of the defendants and the said order is under challenge before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners submitted that the learned trial court has rejected the petition on erroneous ground and failed to appreciate the fact that the defendants have a right to adduce evidence in support of their defence and if the same is denied to them, then it would amount to d
Production of documents – Every party should get opportunity to lead his best evidence – Relevance of documents could be examined by trial court.
The court established that procedural delays should not prevent the introduction of relevant evidence, prioritizing substantial justice.
A person who has knowledge of the facts stated in an affidavit is competent to swear an affidavit and file it in support of an application, even if the person is not a party to the suit.
The court established that additional evidence cannot be admitted in appellate proceedings if the party had prior opportunities to present it, and that the appointment of a commissioner should not be....
The court upheld the trial Court's dismissal of applications to introduce documents due to lack of valid grounds for delay, affirming the importance of timely evidence submission under procedural rul....
The court affirmed that previous orders rejecting applications for scientific measurement in ongoing litigation are final and cannot be re-agitated, emphasizing the principles of res judicata and tim....
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
