Patna High Court - Orders
Suresh Prasad Rajak @ Suresh Rajak And ... vs Sri Krishna Murari Prasad And Ors on 10 May, 2019
Author: Ashwani Kumar Singh
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.326 of 2019
======================================================
Suresh Prasad Rajak @ Suresh Rajak and Ors
... ... Petitioners
Versus
Sri Krishna Murari Prasad and Ors
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr.Shakti Suman Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 10-05-2019Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 21.12.2018 passed by learned Sub- Judge-IX, Patna in Title Suit No. 398 of 2006 whereby he has allowed the petition dated 26.10.2018 filed by the respondent- defendant no. 2.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody, the court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and, in the case of a document Patna High Court C.Misc. No.326 of 2019(2) dt.10-05-2019 2/3 executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. However, before admitting such document in evidence, the court is required to satisfy itself that the document is produced from a proper custody. In the present case, the court below has completely ignored this aspect of the matter and allowed the prayer of respondent-defendant no. 2 even without expressing its satisfaction that the documents in question were produced from proper custody. He contended that the discretion of the court to accept the presumption owing from Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act could not have been exercised arbitrarily. He contended that judicial discretion exercised by the court while passing the impugned order is not supported by the reasons despite the specific objection raised by the petitioners regarding lack of evidence with regard to proper custody of the documents in question.
Issue notice to the respondent-defendant no. 2 both by ordinary process as well as registered cover with A/D for which requisites, etc. must be filed within one week failing which the application shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench.
Rule is made returnable within three months. Patna High Court C.Misc. No.326 of 2019(2) dt.10-05-2019 3/3 In the meantime, further proceedings in connection with Title Suit No. 398 of 2006 pending in the court of learned Sub-Judge-IX, Patna shall remain stayed.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) kanchan/-
U