Jharkhand High Court
Kumar Nalin Singh & Anr vs Debesh Maitra @ Chanchal Moitra on 12 July, 2022
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 27 of 2011
------
Kumar Nalin Singh & Anr. .... .... .... Appellant Versus Debesh Maitra @ Chanchal Moitra .... .... .... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellants : Mr. T.N. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate
------
Order No.11 Dated- 12.07.2022
I.A. No.3025 of 2011
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that this
interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer accept the fresh certified copy of the Anchal Amin's report with sketch map marked Ext.4 for perusal and for just decision in this case for providing equitable justice to the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the entire case of the plaintiff/appellants is based on the report of the Anchal Amin pursuant to demarcation case No.41 of 96-97 which established the fact that defendants-respondents-vendors have sold and handed over the possession of the land belonging to the plaintiffs. It is next submitted during the trial, the plaintiff filed certified copy of the aforesaid report of Anchal Amin in which Anchal Amin sketch map prepared by Anchal Amin was also enclosed as part of the said report. The entire order sheet with report of Anchal Amin with sketch map of Demarcation Case No.41 of 1996-97 was marked Ext.4. It is further submitted that learned trial court after considering the entire report including sketch map of Anchal Amin marked Ext. 4 along with other evidence decreed the suit. It is then submitted that in this interlocutory application because of typographical error the word 'including' has wrongly been mentioned as 'encluding' at several places. It is next submitted that the defendant filed Title Appeal No.23 of 2009 against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and during course of the hearing of the said appeal, the sketch map part of Ext. 4 was available on record but when the plaintiff-respondent obtained the certified copy of the impugned judgment passed in Title Appeal No.23 of 2009, the plaintiff found that learned lower appellate court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court by recording and observing at para no.21 of the judgment and decree that the map prepared by Anchal Amin enclosed with Ext. 4 has not been filed and on that score, held that the finding of the trial court is not based on proper documentary evidence and thereafter, the plaintiff appellants herein obtained fresh certified copy of Anchal Amin report including sketch map marked Ext. 4 and the plaintiff appellants reasonably believe that sketch map enclosed with Anchal Amin's report (Ext.4) might have been lost from the record of the first appellate court. It is next submitted that fresh certified copy of Anchal Amin's report including sketch map marked Ext. 4 be taken on record.
Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection for the same.
Hence, it is ordered that the certified copy of the entire Anchal Amin's report along with sketch map filed in this interlocutory application be treated as part of this record and be also treated as additional copy of Ext. 4.
This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) S.A. No. 27 of 2011 Perusal of the record reveals that notice has not been issued to the respondent no. 5 (a).
The appellants are directed to file requisites for service of notice on the respondent no. 5 (a) by registered post with A/D as well as under ordinary process within four weeks failing which; this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.
Rule is made returnable within six weeks.
List this appeal after receipt of the service report of the notice issued to the respondent no. 5 (a).
Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)