Jharkhand High Court
Dandu Bediya vs Sawana Bediya & Anr on 1 September, 2010
Author: R. K. Merathia
Bench: R. K. Merathia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 3282 of 2009
---
Dandu Bediya ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Sawana Bediya
2. Munuwa Bediya ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. K. MERATHIA
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Satish Kumar Keshri, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate
---
4. 01.09.2010: This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 4.5.2009 passed by the Sub-Judge I, Hazaribagh in partition suit no. 29 of 2003 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner on 6.4.2009 under Order VII Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure for bringing on records certain documents.
The prayer has been rejected by the learned trial court on the ground that such prayer was made at the stage when the case was fixed for argument and secondly petitioner-plaintiff has not explained properly the reason which caused him to file such documents at the belated stage and the reasons assigned by him were not sufficient.
From the petition filed by the learned court below, it appears that only a vague and general statement was made that "documents were kept in a separate file which has been traced out in the last week" - though it is also said that documents are 30 years old and are within the knowledge of defendants.
Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the documents are necessary for proper adjudication of the case, and therefore, even at belated stage the prayer should have been allowed.
On the other hand, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that said prayer should not be allowed. He further submitted that the documents sought to be brought on records are the purported rent receipts said to have been issued much earlier to filing of the said partition suit and so far as the certified copy of Banda Parcha of Khata No. 75 of village Huhuwa (Ramgarh) is concerned, the purported -2- Parcha has been issued during the pendency of the suit against which respondents have filed objection, and the same is pending. However, he fairly submitted that respondents have no objection with regard to documents at serial no. 1 and 2 which are as follows:
1. Certified copy of the Khatiyan of Khata No. 18 of village Ghutuwa, P.S. Ramgarh, Distt. Hazaribagh now Ramgarh;
2. Certified copy of the Khatiyan of Khata No. 38 of village Ghutuwa, P.S. Ramgarh, Distt. Hazaribagh now Ramgarh.
In my opinion, it is necessary for a party to explain the delay in making a prayer. In this case the explanation as to why the documents sought to be brought on record were not produced for about 6 years in this Partition Suit No. 29 of 2003, is wholly unsatisfactory.
In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, the said documents at serial no. 1 and 2 are allowed to be brought on record. The parties will conclude their further evidence, if any, within the time granted by the court below without taking unnecessary adjournments.
With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.
(R. K. Merathia, J.) R. Shekhar Cp 2