Advocates:
['Pankaj Maijorwar', '', 'Nagadeo Choubey', 'Ajeet Narayan Sinha', '', 'Kumar Kaushlendra']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.458 of 2020

======================================================

Md. Shamim Son of Late Md. Atim Resident of Mohalla Dujra, Muslim Gali

P.s. Buddha Colony, Town and District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Bibi Sayeeda Khatoon Wife of Atim Resident of Mohalla Dujra, Muslim

Gali P.s. Buddha Colony, Town and District- Patna.

2.

Md. Nasim Son of Md. Atim Resident of Mohalla Dujra, Muslim Gali P.s.

Buddha Colony, Town and District- Patna.

3.

Praveen Kausar Wife of Md. Nasim Resident of Mohalla Dujra, Muslim

Gali P.s. Buddha Colony, Town and District- Patna.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr.Pankaj Maijorwar

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr.Ajeet Narayan Sinha

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR

PANDEY

ORAL ORDER

5

23-03-2022

The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to

remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within

one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well

as the learned counsel for the respondents.

At the final stage, the stage of argument of Title

Suit No. 92 of 2001, a petition was filed on behalf of the

petitioner/plaintiff with a prayer to mark the certified copy of

the plaint of Title Suit No. 142 of 1967 as exhibit. It was prayed

before the learned court below that the defendants in the

present suit were the plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 142 of 1967 and

they had denied the execution of the document of partnership

and the certified copy of the plaint is the relevant document to

counter the statement of defendant no.1.

Admittedly, the certified copy of that plaint was

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.458 of 2020(5) dt.23-03-2022

2/2

obtained on 08.06.2000 and it was sought to be exhibited after

19 years with the reason that it was missing. There was no

explanation as to why another certified copy was not obtained.

The learned trial court has explicitly mentioned that

the certified copy is spoken to have been misplaced and on its

being traced this application was filed at the final argument

stage. “The plaintiff did not speak about the fact that why he had

not applied and get another certified copy if the certified copy

was allegedly misplaced.”

I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of

the learned court below. Accordingly, this application is

dismissed.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by

the petitioner within the stipulated time as provided

hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the

notice of this Court.

HR/-

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

U