Dismissed

Dharamcharan Panda and Anr. v. Suresh Kumar and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Sept 2014REVP/102/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a review petition filed by parties challenging an order rejecting their application to admit certified copies of documents on record. The court held that the original application was rightly rejected as the documents were not certified copies.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to review the order dismissing the application to admit documents was dismissed.

Dharamcharan Panda and Anr. Vs Suresh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HON'BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶2

REVIEW PETITINO N0.

¶3

-LO^ OF 2014

¶4

PE'NTIONERS ^aintifTs

¶5

/ /
^.M/
€f^
^T
..•'^
.•^' j^
y
^•-

¶6

Dharamcharan Panda S/o late Shri Gocharan Panda, aged about 63 years, occupation-agriculture, R/o villageAmalidih (Jurda), TahsilGharghoda & Distt. Raigarh Civil and Revenue Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Namonarayan Panda S/o late Shri Gocharan Panda, aged about 65 years, occupation-agriculture, R/o villageAmalidih (Jurda), TahsilGharghoda 85 Distt. Raigarh Civil and Revenue Distt. Raigarh

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS

/Defendants

Suresh Kumar S/o Late • Shri Mangal Panda,

¶11

2'. Subhash Kumar S/o Late Shri Mangal Panda, , ,3': Madhawi D/o of Late Shri Mangal Panda, ^K' Manjulata D/o of Late Shri Mangal Panda, fvy Mus. Santoshini widow of Late Shri Mangal Panda,

¶12

All resident of village-Bhalumar, Tah. Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh (CG)

¶13

¶14

Ramesh S/'o late Shir Partho Panda, aged about 40 years, resident of villageBhaluinar, Tah. Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh (CG)

¶15

^ ^^MC-^y^^t^s"--^^ -s-wssslaS^as'S-M^fc'.

;a-'

BKSJiH S^^NI

Vaishnav S/o Dhobai, aged bout 65 years, resident of village-Amalidih, Ta±i. Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh (CG)

¶20

Kuber S/o late Belal, aged about 45 years,

¶21

Mus. Gangainati D/o late Belal, aged about-35 years,

¶22

l.Ck-

¶23

1>:

¶24

Mus. Pushpa D/o late Belal, aged about32 years,

¶25

Ramlal S/o late Belal, aged about-30 years, R/o of S.No. 8 to 11 of village Amalidih, Tah. Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh (CG).

¶26

State of C.G. through Collector, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.)

¶27

Barun Kumar S/o Vaishnav R/o village Amalidih, Tah. Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh (CG).

¶28

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 28^S7 14 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(227) \M^~

¶29

N0,567/2014.^_——^

¶30

REVIEWPETiTION N0.10a2M4

¶31

Petitioners

¶32

[Miaramcharan Panda and anottier

¶33

Suresh Kumar and olheis.

¶34

»ETITION FOR REVIEW

¶35

iingle Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra lyiohan Shrivastava. J.

¶36

fPassedonS3ffl9/»14)

¶37

Thls rewew peh'tion has been ffled by the pditioners seeldng s review of dated 261 on Ihe ground 1hat the petitioneis have already. submitted certified copy of fte proceedings and documents. Therefore, ths order be rewewed w4th ihe direction to the Trial Court to adfflit the certified rayies whidi have been submitted by 1he petitioners in the civil suit.

¶38

The learned TriaS Court rejected apptication ofthe petitioners for bringing new documenton record. It partly allowed petitioners' appiication under Sech'on 151 CPC for admitiing in evidence oniy those documente, certified copy ofwhich

¶39

vrere on record and already fiied. The on!y submission made before ttie Court at the time of argument was that as order drted 29/01/1982 was passed by the Eevenueauttiorities in revenue proceedings, ttie is admisslble. This

¶40

¶41

"••^^u^"

¶42

Court affirmed the triai Cnjrts wder rejecting petitioners applicstion for admitBng document dated 29ffl1/1982 as ttie same is not s certified copy but mily

¶43

photocopy. The llberty was given to submit certified copy of doiaiment dated 29/01/1982. Therefore, prayer to review the order seeklng diredion to admt tfiose documente which were directed bythe Trial Court on the grwind that they have been submitted beiatedly vntfiout any reason and thst too after dosure of evidence, cannot be atlowed. This review pefflion has no merit and is accordmgly

¶44

disirissed.

¶45

Sd/Manindra Mohan Shrivastav.

¶46

, Judge

¶47

finhir

¶48

Dharamcharan Panda and Anr. v. Suresh Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharamcharan Panda and Anr. v. Suresh Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushil Kumar Dhaner Vs M.P.Laghu Udyog Nigam and Ors.

Rohit Singh Tanwar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Reshamlal and Ors. Vs Lakeshari and Anr.

Jai Ambey Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Basnajhar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt.kamlesh Shukla Vs South Eastern Coal Field Ltd. And Ors.

Anil Kumar Katyal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.