Lakhendra Kashyap Vs Saraswati

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

2024:CGHC:46024

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 823 of 2023

¶6

1 - Lakhendra Kashyap S/o Hirenand Kashyap, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village And Post Singhnapur, Police Station Tahsil Basna And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner/Defendant No.2.

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Saraswati D/o. Hirenand Kashyap W/o. Amrit Patel, Aged About 38 Years R/o. Village Bijatipali, Post Ketuwa Police Station And Tahsil Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Surekha, D/o. Hirenand Kashyap, W/o Krivasindhu, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Kanwarpali, Post Nawagarh, Police Station Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Hirenand Kashyap S/o Parmanand Kashyap, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village And Post Singhanpur, Police Station Tahsil And, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - Minor Ku. Bhumi D/o Devprasad, Aged About 14 Years Through Natural Guardian Father Devprasad S/o Mohan.

¶13

5 - Minor Ashish S/o Deveprasad, Aged About 11 Years Through Natural

¶14

2 / 4

¶15

Guardian Father Devprasad S/o Mohan.

¶16

6 - Minor Ku. Anchal D/o. Deveprasad, Aged About 11 Years Through Natural Guardian Father Devprasad S/o Mohan.

¶17

Respondents No.4 to 6 R/o. Village Achanakpali, Police Station And Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶18

7 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector Mahasamund District Mahasamund C.G.

¶19

8 - Narsingh S/o Sadanand, Aged About 52 Years , R/o Village Durgapali, Post Rohina, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶20

9 - Narottam S/o Sadanand, Aged About 45 Years , R/o Village Durgapali, Post Rohina, Tahsil Basna, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶21

10 - Smt. Puspa Patel D/o. Narottam Patel Aged About 38 Years Caste Aghariya, R/o Village Durgapali, Post Rohina, Tahsil Basna

¶22

11 - Rambhabai W/o Duryodhan Narmada, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Singhanpur, Police Station And Tahsil Basna, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶23

12 - Chhattisgarh State Rural Bank Manager (Manager) Branch Basna District Mahasamund C.G.

¶24

13 - H.D.F.C. Bank (Manager), Mungeli Road Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶25

... Respondents.

¶26

For Petitioner	: Shri Shikhar Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 & 2	None though served.
For Respondent No.3	: Shri Rajendra Patel, Advocate.
For State/Respondent No.7.	Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, PL.

¶27

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Order On Board

3 / 4

25/11/2024

This petition has been filed against the order dated 23.09.2023 passed by Civil Judge Class 2, Basna District Mahasamund in Civil Suit No.8A/2017 whereby, application preferred by petitioner/Defendant No.2 under Order 8 Rule 1(A) CPC for taking additional documents i.e. renumbering list in relation to subject matter of the property on record, was disallowed.

¶32

Necessary facts of the case are that plaintiffs/ respondents have filed a civil suit for declaration of title, partition, possession and for permanent injunction in respect of suit land. Evidence of the plaintiffs was recorded and the suit was fixed for defendants’ evidence. At that time, one relevant document was received by Defendant No.2 from the revenue authorities on 11.09.2023 which pertains to renumbering list of various Khasra numbers and the same are relevant for proper adjudication of the plaint. Because of the relevancy of the said documents an application under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) CPC was filed for taking them on record. However the said application was dismissed by the order impugned. Hence this petition.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that plaintiffs themselves have earlier filed an application for taking said documents on record i.e. renumbering list and the material bearing to the case, however, learned trial court rejected the said application. He would further submit that Defendant No.2 has also filed an application for taking said documents on record and the same was also dismissed by the

¶34

4 / 4

¶35

order impugned.

¶36

Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 would not oppose the aforesaid submission.

¶37

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully.

¶38

Having considered the submissions and particularly considering that by way of subject application renumbering list which pertains to subject matter of the property as also public document has been filed, for taking said documents on record. However, the said application has been dismissed by the trial court assigning reasons which are not acceptable. Hence, impugned order is not sustainable and is hereby set aside.

¶39

The concerned Court shall accept the said documents subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner within 21 days of this order before the concerned District Legal Services Authority and after receipt to that effect is furnished, the concerned Court shall take aforesaid documents on record and shall also provide opportunity to the other side to file documents in rebuttal, if any. The trial Court shall thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

¶40

With the aforesaid observation/direction, instant Petition is disposed of.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶43

Judge

¶44

Avinash

Lakhendra Kashyap v. Saraswati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhendra Kashyap v. Saraswati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rekha Yadav Vs Smt. Sushila Singh

Devraj Gond Vs Krishna Kumar Maravi

Itwari Ram Dewangan Vs Sadbhav Group Director (1) Wafiq Khan

Smt. Kasturi Thakur Vs Adhin Ram Sinha

Grihum Housing Finance Limited Vs Geeta Agrawal

Mangla Deshmukh Vs Rahul Deshmukh