Dismissed

Arvind Kumar Tirkey v. Geeta Agariya

Chhattisgarh HC9 Sept 2024WP227/361/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the trial Court's refusal to call a Sub-Registrar to prove a sale deed and to call original revenue records. The Court held that certified copies are sufficient evidence under the Evidence Act and that calling original records or additional government witnesses without extraordinary circumstances is unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Both petitions are dismissed; the impugned orders upholding the trial court's refusal to call witnesses and records are affirmed.

Arvind Kumar Tirkey Vs Geeta Agariya — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 6

2024:CGHC:35332

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

W.P(227) No.361 of 2021

¶6

Arvind Kumar Tirkey S/o Gambhir Sai Aged About 30 Years CasteOraon, R/o Village- Darridih, Police Station And Tahsil- Lundra, DistrictSurguja, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - Geeta Agariya D/o Ramnath Aged About 58 Years R/o Mayapur, P.S- And Tahsil - Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2024.09.11 17:11:40 +0530

¶10

2 - Kamal Singh S/o Ram Babu Singh, aged about 40 years, R/o Mayapur, P.S. And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Sadhana Ekka D/o Rmapal Aged About 36 Years R/o Kouvadand, Mayapur, P.S And Tahsil- Ambikapur, Districrt- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - Jasvanti Kujur D/o Philip Kujur Aged About 38 Years R/o Kouvadand, Mayapur, P.S And Tahsil- Ambikapur, Districrt- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

5 - Shivcharan Ram S/o Manglu Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o VillageKalyanpur, Tahsil And DistrictSurajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

6 - Shivraj Singh S/o Govind Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o VillageGuturma, P.S And Tahsil- Sitapur, Distric- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

2 / 6

¶16

7 - Hariram S/o Sukhsai Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Batouli Ayurvedic Hospital (Hospital Worker), District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

8 - Sadhana Maravi D/o Panchamram Aged About 21 Years R/o Atal Awas Babupara, Near New Bus Stand, P.S And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

9 - Ganga Prasad Mishra Halka Patwari, P.H. No.12, Tahsil - Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶19

10 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Surguja, DistrictSurguja, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

¶20

W.P(227) No.496 of 2021

¶21

Arvind Kumar Tirkey S/o Gambhir Sai Aged About 30 Years Caste Oraon, R/o Village Darridih, Police Station And Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

¶22

Versus

¶23

1 - Geeta Agariya D/o Ramnath Aged About 58 Years R/o Mayapur, P. S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶24

2 - Kamal Singh S/o Ram Babu Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Mayapur, P. S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶25

3 - Sadhana Ekka D/o Rampal Aged About 36 Years R/o Kouvadand Mayapur, P. S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶26

4 - Jasvanti Kujur D/o Philip Kujur Aged About 38 Years R/o Kouvadand Mayapur, P. S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶27

5 - Shivcharan Ram S/o Manglu Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village

¶28

3 / 6

¶29

Kalyanpur, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh

¶30

6 - Shivraj Singh S/o Govind Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Guturma, P. S. And Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶31

7 - Hariram S/o Sukhsai Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Batouli Ayurvedic Hospital (Hospital) Worker) District Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶32

8 - Sadhna Maravi D/o Panchamram Aged About 21 Years R/o Atal Awas Babupara, Near New Bus Stand, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶33

9 - Ganga Prasad Mishra Halka Patwari P. H. No.12, Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶34

10 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Surguja District Surguja Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

¶35

For Petitioner :	Shri Ashok Shukla, Advocate.
For respective :	Shri Nishikant Sinha, Advocate and Shri
Respondents	Topilal Bareth, PL.

¶36

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board

¶37

10.09.2024

¶38

As both these Petitions arise out of same Civil Suit, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶39

The Petitioner herein has assailed the legality and validity of the order dated 15.07.2021 passed by the 3^rd Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, Surguja in Civil Suit No.06-A/2016, whereby the application preferred by him under Order 13 Rule 10(1) CPC for calling the original

¶40

4 / 6

¶41

record of the revenue case in spite of the certified copy being filed, was dismissed and another application to prove the copy of the registered sale deed dated 29.01.2014 for calling the then Sub-Registrar namely GG Lakras to prove the sale deed was dismissed in W.P(227) No.496/2021. The Petitioner has assailed the order dated 07.08.2021 by moving an application for calling the present Sub-Registrar to prove the registered sale deed dated 29.01.2014, which was dismissed and moved another application on 26.07.2021 after examination of Plaintiff - Arvind Tirkey for taking document i.e. written statement of the cross suit on record, which was also dismissed.

¶42

Undisputedly, the Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed the certified copy of the document and as per Section 77 of the Evidence Act, such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents. Section 79 of the said Act deals with the presumption as to genuineness of certified copies. For ready reference, the said Sections are reproduced hereunder:-

¶43

“77. Proof of documents by production of certified copies .––Such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies.

¶44

79. Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies. –– The Court shall presume [to be genuine] every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy or other document, which is by law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact and which purports to be duly certified by any officer [of the Central Government or of a State Government, or by any officer [in the State of Jammu and Kashmir] who is duly authorized thereto by the Central Government]:

¶45

Provided that such document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the manner directed by law in that behalf.

¶46

5 / 6

¶47

The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such document purports to be signed or certified, held, when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such paper.”

¶48

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as also the relevant documents carefully.

¶49

It is well settled that for proving a certified copy, calling a Government witness is not necessary. In the instant case, there was no need of calling the Sub-Registrar for proving the contents of the registered sale deed and the trial Court has rightly observed that the contents of the said sale deed could be proved by the attesting witness as the Sub-Registrar has acted in the official capacity, therefore, the order whereby the trial Court has declined to call the Government witness i.e. the Sub-Registrar by way of the impugned orders is affirmed. It is an established fact that when a certified copy could be filed, the original record need not be called for invoking the powers vested under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC. The law is well settled that when the original or public records should not be called for when duly authenticated and certified copies of the same are admissble and it will serve the purpose for which the records are required and no such extra situation could be established for calling the original records, therefore, the trial Court has rightly refused to call the revenue record while giving liberty to the Petitioner to file the certified copy thereof.

¶50

The Plaint has been filed in the year 2016 and in the written statement filed along with the cross suit on 04.01.2017, issues were also settled on 08.03.2018 and thereafter, the Plaintiff has taken 4-5 adjournments for recording evidence and on 05.10.2019, examined

¶51

6 / 6

¶52

himself and after more than 2 years of his examination, on 26.07.2021, an application has been filed for taking the written statement on record in reply to the cross suit. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that under Order under 8 Rule 6 (3) CPC, the trial Court has never fixed the date for filing the reply of the cross suit. It is very surprising that when the issues were settled and a Counsel has been engaged, he is not aware of the pleadings when evidence of the Plaintiff was also adduced and thereafter, he has filed an application for the written statment to be admitted in the cross suit. Even a reason has been assigned in the said application that there was Covid-19 but there was no such pandemic in the year 2017, therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly rejected the aforesaid prayer.

¶53

In view of the foregoing, this Court does not find any merit or substance in both the Petitions and the trial Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction and as such, there seems to be no perversity or irregularity in both the orders impugned warranting any intereference invoking supervisory jurisdiction.

¶54

In the result, both the Petitions are hereby dismissed .

¶55

Priya

Arvind Kumar Tirkey v. Geeta Agariya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Tirkey v. Geeta Agariya

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

Valiullah Riyaz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shreepat Mishra Vs M/S Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Moti Ram Sahu and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Motilal Ratre Vs M/S Mahamaya Agrotech

Smt. Kamala Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arvind Kumar Tirkey Vs Geeta Agariya