IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 19 of 2019 Binay Kumar Dokania, aged about 51 years, son of Sri Raghunath Dokania, Resident of Jamtara Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Jamtara, District Jamtara … … Defendant/Appellant/Appellant Versus Decorum Nirman Limited, a company limited by shares incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (No. 1 of 1956) having its registered office at 23A, Netaji Subhash Road, 6^th Floor, Room No. 19, P.O. + P.S. Park Street, Kolkata – 700001, represented through Mr. Shib Kumar Parsuramka, Son of late Shankarlal Parsuramka, resident of Jamtara Bazar, Jamtara, P.O., P.S., Subdivision & Sub registration office Jamtara, District Jamtara as Director … … Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent ---

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate Lastly heard on 23^rd January, 2025 ---

13/11th March 2025

1. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2018 (decree signed on 03.01.2019) passed by the learned District Judge-I, Jamtara in Civil Appeal No. 26/2017 whereby the learned lower appellate court has been pleased to dismissed the appeal and has affirmed the judgment dated 14.06.2017 (decree signed on 30.06.2017) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) II, Jamtara in Title Eviction Suit No. 03/2012 whereby the learned trial court has decreed the plaintiff’s suit.

2. This appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated

31.03.2022 on the following substantial questions of law: -

1) Whether certified copy of the registered sale deed No. 428 of 2008 dated 17.7.2008 could have been exhibited on the date of the judgment as a public document?

2) Whether courts below could have concluded on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed that the plaintiff is the land lord of the defendant(s)?

3) Whether in view of the sale deed, the plaintiff can claim that he has become land lord of the property by virtue of aforesaid?

4) Whether in view of the fact that the sale deed which covers total area of 21.95 decimal of land, the decree could have been passed for eviction in respect of 34 decimal, which is beyond the area covered by the sale deed?.

Arguments of the Appellant

3. While referring to the substantial question No. 1, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the registered sale deed No. 428 of 2008 dated 17.07.2008 (Exhibit-6) has been wrongly admitted in evidence on the date of judgment. He has referred to the Order VII Rule 14 of CPC to submit that the sale deed, which was the basis of the claim of the plaintiff, was required to be produced while filing the plaint and anything subsequently can be introduced only with the leave of the Court. He has also submitted that as per Order XIII Rule 1 of CPC, the original document is also required to be filed. The learned counsel submits that the manner in which the sale deed was admitted into evidence is unknown to the provisions of CPC. He has also submitted that if the sale deed is excluded, then the basis of the plaintiff fails and consequently the appeal is to be allowed.

4. The learned counsel has also submitted that merely because the sale deed is a registered document, the same cannot be adduced in evidence in the manner which has been done, inasmuch as, there was no occasion for the appellant-tenant to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff with regard to the nature and the extent of land involved in the sale deed. He has also submitted that the sale deed in the present case cannot be said to be an admitted document. The learned counsel submits that in case, the sale deed is excluded from the evidence, then none of the parties can rely upon the same for any purpose whatsoever. The learned counsel has also submitted that merely because the sale deed is registered that by itself does not become a public document. However, he submits that he shall provide a copy of a judgment in support of t