Disposed

Satnami Samaj Samrupara v. Ram Kumar Tandon

Chhattisgarh HC13 Aug 2024WP227/297/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court ordered petitioners to pay costs to conclude cross-examination of defendants' witnesses in a property dispute suit. Court directed reading of certified copy agreement under Evidence Act Section 79.

What did the court decide?

One last opportunity granted to conclude cross-examination upon payment of Rs. 7000 costs; certified copy to be read under Section 79 Evidence Act.

Satnami Samaj Samrupara Vs Ram Kumar Tandon — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 6

2024:CGHC:30788

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 297 of 2021

¶6

1. Satnami Samaj Samrupara Pandariya Tahsil Pandariya District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh Through Its Representatives -

¶7

1.1- Shiv Narayan Banjara S/o Shekhram Banjara, Aged About 66 Years

¶8

1.2- Ganesh Kurre S/o Pyare Lal, Aged About 35 Years

¶9

1.3- Mohan Das Jangde S/o Firtu, Aged About 67 Years

¶10

Petitioner No. 1 to 3 R/o Ward No. 1 Samrupara Pandariya Tahsil Pandariya District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶11

1.4- Moolchand Dahire S/o Mangluram Dahire, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Ward No. 5 Satish Nagar Pandariya Tahsil Pandariya District Kabirdham Chhatisgarh

¶12

... Petitioners

¶13

versus

¶14

1. Ram Kumar Tandon S/o Hemrai, Aged About 49 Years 2- Balram Ghritlahare S/o Tirath Aged About 48 Years

¶15

Digitally signed by SHYNA SHYNA AJAY Date: AJAY 2024.08.16 15:20:12 +0530

¶16

Both respondent No. 1 & 2 R/o Ward No. 3 Gopibandpara, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶17

2 / 6

¶18

3- Shivcharan S/o Late Titara, Aged About 70 Years (Name as well as age as 49 Years Wrongly Mentioned)

¶19

4- Shiv S/o Shivcharan, Aged About 42 Years

¶20

5- Bhuwan S/o Shivcharan, Aged About 39 Years

¶21

6- Ramayan S/o Shivcharan Aged About 36 Years

¶22

Respondent No. 3 to 6 R/o Village Nawagaon Hataha, Tahsil Pandariya District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶23

7- Santoshi D/o Shivcharan, Aged About 31 Years, W/o Santan Miri, R/o Village Gorakhpur Chowki Fasterpur P.S. And Tahsil Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh

¶24

8- State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Kabirdham, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶25

9- General Public Of Village Pandariya Tahsil Pandariya District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari and Mr. FS Khare, Advocates For Respondents 1 &2 : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State: Mr. Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer

¶26

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶27

14/08/2024

¶28

This petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 14.6.2021 and 24.6.2021, passed by the Civil Judge ClassII, Pandariya District Kabirdham in Civil Suit No.13A/2015, whereby, an application preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs

¶29

3 / 6

¶30

for calling the Sub Registrar to prove the certified copy of the agreement and the application filed under Order 16 Rule 1 (3) of CPC were dismissed and further opportunity to crossexamine the defendant’s witnesses was also closed by the impugned order.

¶31

Briefly stated facts of the case are that Petitioner - Satnami Samaj has filed a representative suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and declaring the sale-deed as null and void. The evidence of the plaintiffs was closed on 3.3.2021. On 14.6.2021, when the case was fixed for defendants’ evidence, an application was preferred by the plaintiffs/petitioners herein under Order 16 Rule 1(3) of the CPC, for calling the SubRegistrar Bilaspur to prove the certified copy of the agreement and the said application was dismissed. Thereafter, the case was listed on 26.3.2021 and on such date, counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs namely Sitaram Chandrakar had gone to Kawardha and on such ground, an adjournment was sought and thereafter, the case was listed on 24.6.2021. On the said date, though the defendants’ witnesses were present, but, in the order sheet recorded at 12:30 p.m, on the same day, a direction was made to conclude the cross-examination of the defendants’ evidence and later on, when the case was listed, the said counsel had again not made appearance. In such circumstances, the trial Court has closed the opportunity of cross-examination. Hence, this petition.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the certified copies are admissible in evidence and the presumption

¶33

4 / 6

¶34

as to the genuineness of certified copies is dealt with under Section 79 of the Evidence Act. Further, under Section 77of the said Act, such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents. They would fairly submit that to prove the registration of the document, evidence of Sub-Registrar is not necessary and the trial Court may be directed to read the certified copy in terms of Section 79 of the Evidence Act.

¶35

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents would support the impugned orders on submissions that there was no need for calling of the SubRegistrar merely to prove that the document has been registered in the said ofÏce. Hence, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the said application. The petitioners/plaintiffs have engaged a lawyer and it is quite vivid from the proceedings of the concerned Court that the said lawyer has not appeared though the witnesses were present before the Court for crossexamination.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully.

¶37

It is well settled that the parties should not be penalised for the fault of the counsel. It is expected from the lawyer to cooperate with the proceeding to advance the cause of justice. Even when a pleader is desirous for adjournment on personal ground, it is his professional obligation to make alternate arrangements as necessary.

¶38

Taking into consideration the aforesaid backdrop of the case,

¶39

5 / 6

¶40

this Court deems it appropriate to afford one last opportunity to the petitioners/plaintiffs to conclude the cross-examination of the defendants’ witnesses subject to payment of cost of Rs.7000/-, out of which, Rs.3500/- shall be paid to the concerned District Court Legal Services Committee and the remaining part shall be paid to the defendants in a proportionate manner through their counsel. The said deposit shall be made within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, within a period of one month, on the dates so fixed by the concerned trial Court, the defendants shall keep their witnesses present. Ordered accordingly.

¶41

However, it is made clear that during the aforesaid period, if the petitioners/plaintiffs fail to cross-examine the subject witnesses, then, no further opportunity shall be granted to them for the said purpose. It is further directed that without calling the Sub Registrar to prove the registration, the certified copy of the agreement may be read in terms of Section 79 of the Evidence Act.

¶42

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition is disposed of.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶45

Judge

¶46

Shyna

¶47

6 / 6

Satnami Samaj Samrupara v. Ram Kumar Tandon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satnami Samaj Samrupara v. Ram Kumar Tandon

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

General Manager, South Eastern Coal Field Limited Vs Bhagwandeen

Fulbasiya @ Birajobai Vs Sunita

Smt. Lalit Vs Ramgovind

Anil Kumar Luniya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunny Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajeev Agrawal Vs Ramkali Agrawal