Writs challenging dismissal of applications under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC to summon the Sub-Registrar and obtain original revenue records despite certified copies filed, and to admit a belated written statement in a cross suit. Court affirmed the trial court's orders and dismissed both petitions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 / 6
2024:CGHC:35332
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
W.P(227) No.361 of 2021
Arvind Kumar Tirkey S/o Gambhir Sai Aged About 30 Years CasteOraon, R/o Village- Darridih, Police Station And Tahsil- Lundra, DistrictSurguja, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner
versus
1 - Geeta Agariya D/o Ramnath Aged About 58 Years R/o Mayapur, P.S- And Tahsil - Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2024.09.11 17:11:40 +0530
2 - Kamal Singh S/o Ram Babu Singh, aged about 40 years, R/o Mayapur, P.S. And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Sadhana Ekka D/o Rmapal Aged About 36 Years R/o Kouvadand, Mayapur, P.S And Tahsil- Ambikapur, Districrt- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Jasvanti Kujur D/o Philip Kujur Aged About 38 Years R/o Kouvadand, Mayapur, P.S And Tahsil- Ambikapur, Districrt- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Shivcharan Ram S/o Manglu Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o VillageKalyanpur, Tahsil And DistrictSurajpur, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Shivraj Singh S/o Govind Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o VillageGuturma, P.S And Tahsil- Sitapur, Distric- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
2 / 6
7 - Hariram S/o Sukhsai Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Batouli Ayurvedic Hospital (Hospital Worker), District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
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.
9 - Ganga Prasad Mishra Halka Patwari, P.H. No.12, Tahsil - Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
10 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Surguja, DistrictSurguja, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents
W.P(227) No.496 of 2021
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
Versus
1 - Geeta Agariya D/o Ramnath Aged About 58 Years R/o Mayapur, P. S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh
2 - Kamal Singh S/o Ram Babu Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Mayapur, P. S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh
3 - Sadhana Ekka D/o Rampal Aged About 36 Years R/o Kouvadand Mayapur, P. S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh
4 - Jasvanti Kujur D/o Philip Kujur Aged About 38 Years R/o Kouvadand Mayapur, P. S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh
5 - Shivcharan Ram S/o Manglu Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village
3 / 6
Kalyanpur, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh
6 - Shivraj Singh S/o Govind Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Guturma, P. S. And Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh
7 - Hariram S/o Sukhsai Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Batouli Ayurvedic Hospital (Hospital) Worker) District Surguja Chhattisgarh
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
9 - Ganga Prasad Mishra Halka Patwari P. H. No.12, Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh
10 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Surguja District Surguja Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents
| For Petitioner : |
Shri Ashok Shukla, Advocate. |
|---|---|
| For respective : |
Shri Nishikant Sinha, Advocate and Shri |
| Respondents | Topilal Bareth, PL. |
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board
10.09.2024
4 / 6
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.
“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.
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]:
Provided that such document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the manner directed by law in that behalf.
5 / 6
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.”
6 / 6
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.
Priya
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court rightly refused to summon the Sub-Registrar or call the original revenue record when a certified copy of the sale deed was already filed.
Whether the trial court rightly rejected taking on record the petitioner's written statement in reply to the cross suit filed years after issues were settled.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Arvind Kumar Tirkey
Geeta Agariya
Kamal Singh
Sadhana Ekka
Jasvanti Kujur
State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector Surguja
Deepak Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
