Smt. Sabhan Bai Vs Baldev Prasad Dhuri

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

2024:CGHC:33733

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

W.P(227) No.767 of 2024

¶6

1 - Smt. Sabhan Bai W/o Late Shivnarayan Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Kormi Ps Sirgitti Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

2 - Karan Dhuri D/o Late Shivnarayan Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Kormi Ps Sirgitti Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶8

3 - Anil Dhuri S/o Late Shivnarayan Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Kormi Ps Sirgitti Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶9

4 - Sunil Dhuri S/o Late Shivnarayan Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Kormi Ps Sirgitti Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶10

5 - Anita Dhuri D/o Late Shivnarayan Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Kormi Ps Sirgitti Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Sarita D/o Late Shivnarayan Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Kormi Ps Sirgitti Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶11

7 - Dulaurin Bai D/o Late Shivnarayan, W/o Jethu Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Bodri Near Matachaura Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

... Petitioners

¶13

versus

¶14

Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2024.09.04 17:59:33 +0530

¶15

1 - Baldev Prasad Dhuri S/o Late Shri Shankar Lal Dhuri Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kormi Ps Sirgitti Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶16

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶17

3 - Budhwara Bai W/o Late Nandram R/o Village Kormi, Ps Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶18

4 - Kashiram S/o Late Nandram R/o Village Kormi, Ps Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶19

2 / 4

¶20

5 - Hori Lal S/o Late Nandram R/o Village Kormi, Ps Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶21

6 - Jughi D/o Late Nandram, W/o Krishna R/o Village Kormi, Ps Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶22

7 - Pahuna W/o Khilawan D/o Late Nandram R/o Village Kormi, Ps Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶23

8 - Bhanu W/o Sadhram, D/o Late Nandram R/o Village Kormi, Ps Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶24

9 - Puniya W/o Shital D/o Late Nandram R/o Village Kormi, Ps Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶25

10 - Brihaspati W/o Konda D/o Late Nandram R/o Village Takhatpur Ps And Tahsil Takhatpur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents

¶26

For Petitioners : Shri Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Rajeev Bharat, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board

¶27

03.09.2024

¶28

This Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constituion of India assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the 10^th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.88-A/2014, whereby the application filed by the Respondents/Plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC for taking document on record and the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC for recalling the Plaintiff witness were allowed.

¶29

Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent/sPlaintiffs have filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and partition on 12.05.2014 and when the case has reached final stage, on 15.03.2024, the trial Court has reopened the case on the ground that Defendants No.9 to 16 have averred that the sale of the land bearing

¶30

3 / 4

¶31

Khasra No.25/3 area 0.71 decimal was made in favour of Nandram by a registered sale deed. Defendants No.2 to 4 have also made an averment with regard to the Will but on such aspects, no issues have been framed, therefore, additional issues No.5 to 7 and in alternative, certain other issues were also framed on such date and thereafter, the parties were allowed to adduce evidence on such additional issues and the case was listed on 21.03.2024. Later on, the Respondents/Plainitffs have filed certain documents to be taken on record and the subject application was allowed by the trial Court permitting them to recall their witness to exhibit/mark such document. Hence this Petition.

¶32

Shri Pandey submits that the certified documents were always in possession of the Respondents/Plaintiffs but earlier, the same were not filed and the trial Court has, suo moto, reopened the case for framing the additional issues and the Respondents/Plainitffs were given an opportunity to fill up the entire lacuna. He further submits that the trial Court has wrongly permitted the Respondents/Plaintiffs to recall their witness by allowing the said applications and as such has committed a grave mistake as prejudice has been caused to the Petitioners/Defendants and prays to allow the Petition and set aside the order impugned.

¶33

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the Petition carefully.

¶34

Admittedly, the case has been reopend after it was fixed for judgment on 15.03.2024 as certain material issues have not been

¶35

4 / 4

¶36

examined. For proper adjudication of the case, such additional issues were essential and therefore, the trial Court has reopened the case and thereafter, afforded a fair opportunity to both sides for adducing evidence of such issues. Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC stipulates that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the Plaintiff when the Plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the Plaint but is not produced or entered accordinlgy, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. The Petitioners/Defendants have, in the pleading itself, stated that the said documents are certified copies, therefore, the same were required to be taken on record and as such, no prejudice has been caused to them as the said documents were materially needed for fair adjudication of the case. When the case was reopened, in the fact situation of the case, the trial Court has earlier permitted the Respondents/Plaintiffs to recall their witness exercising its discretionary power, therefore, there seems to be no manifest error or perversity in the order impugned.

¶37

In view of above, this Court does not find any substance in this Petition, which is accordingly dismissed at motion stage itseslf.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶40

Priya

Smt. Sabhan Bai v. Baldev Prasad Dhuri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sabhan Bai v. Baldev Prasad Dhuri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Chandrakar Vs Krishna Kumar Chandrakar

Mukesh Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ganpati Refractories and Mineral Pvt. Ltd. Vs C.G Environment Conservation Board

Vinod Chawla Vs Mohammad Saleem

The Sub Divisional Officer phones Vs Deceased Sameer Singh Through L Rs

Ashiya Begam Vs Ramprasad