IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.501 of 2019

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

1.

Md. Rustam Son of Md. Karim, resident of Village-Valuchak, P.O.-

Kabirchak, P.S. and Anchal- Sadar, District- Darbhanga.

2.

Md. Rayesh, Son of Md. Karim, resident of Vilage-Valuchak, P.O.-

Kabirchak, P.S. and Anchal-Sadar, District- Darbhanga.

... ... Plaintiffs-Petitioners

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Collector, Darbhanga.

2.

Deputy Collector, Land Reform (D.C.L.R.) Sadar Darbhanga, District-

Darbhanga.

3.

Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar Darbhanga, Districct- Darbhanga.

4.

Circle Officer, Sadar Darbhanga, District- Darbhanga.

5.

Circle Inspector, Sadar Anchal, District- Darbhanga.

6.

Halka Karamchari, Sadar, Mauza Kabirchak Sadar Anchal, District-

Darbhanga.

7.

Anchal Amin, Sadar Anchal, District- Darbhanga.

…. … Defendants 1^st Parties/Respondents 1^st Parties

8.

Nisar Ahmad Khan, son of Late Md. Aziz Khan, resident of Village-

Valuchak, P.O.- Kabirchak, P.S.-Sadar, District- Darbhanga.

9.

Md. M.S. Khan @ Bikki, son of Late Md. Aziz Khan, resident of Village-

Valuchak, P.O.- Kabirchak, P.S. Sadar, District- Darbhanga.

... ... Defendants 2^nd Parties-Respondents 2^nd Parties

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioners

:

Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Advocate

For the Respondent-State:

Mr. Surekha Kumari, AC to GP-18

For the Private Respondent:

Mr. Uma Shankar Singh, Advocate

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 30-08-2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

counsel for the State of Bihar and learned counsel for the

defendants 2^nd party /respondents 2^nd party.

2.

This application under Article 227 of the

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.501 of 2019 dt.30-08-2019

2/14

Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for setting

aside the order dated 01.12.2018 passed by the learned Sub-

Judge-VII, Darbhanga in Title Suit No. 76 of 2013 whereby the

petition dated 12.09.2018 filed on behalf of defendant 1^st

party/respondent 1^st party for marking certified copy of

Cadastral Survey Khesra Panji of plot nos. 143, 144, 145 as

exhibit was allowed and were marked as Ext. E for defendant 1^st

party/opposite 1^st party.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that true copy of the register of Khata No. 497 endorsed by the

Circle Officer, Sadar, Darbhanga is not a certified copy of a

public document in terms of Section 76 of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872. The said Circle Officer has transcribed a copy of

register of Khata No.497 having Plot Nos. 143, 144 and 145 but

it did not compare the same with original. Hence, in terms of

illustration E of Section 63 of the Evidence Act, said copy of

register of Khata No. 497 is not a secondary evidence. He has

further contended that even if it is believed to be a secondary

evidence the same could not have been proved save and except

by way of filing a certified copy of the document.

4.

On the basis of the aforesaid pleading, he

contended that the order impugned passed by the trial court

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.501 of 2019 dt.30-08-2019

3/14

whereby it has allowed the petition dated 01.12.2018 filed by

the defendant 1^st party for marking the certified copy of

Cadastral Survey Khesra Panji as exhibit is bad in law and is fit

to be set aside.

5.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

State submitted that since the true copy of register of Khata No.

497 was filed with endorsement “certified to be true” by the

Circle Officer, no illegality can be found in the order impugned

dated 01.12.2018.

6.

Learned counsel appearing for the defendant

2^nd party/respondent 2^nd party has also adopted the arguments

advanced by the learned counsel for the State. He has further

contended