The High Court quashed an order of a civil court rejecting admission of documents on technical grounds and directed the trial court to pass an order afresh.
Impugned order set aside; learned court directed to pass order afresh considering relevant ratio.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 161 of 2020
Smt. Parul Singh .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Special Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department & Ors.
.. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramchander Sahu, Advocate For the Opp. Party(s) :
03/ 21.11.2022 . The instant CMP has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.11.2019 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) XIV, Dhanbad in Title Suit No.41 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the petition for leave to mark exhibit the certified copy of document i.e. Hukumnama, order-sheet of Mutation Case No.2 (XI) 78-79 has been rejected.
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is the plaintiff in said Title Suit No.41 of 2011 which has been filed for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property. The claim for title is based upon settlement of land by Registered Hukumnama and on the basis of settlement, return under Form-M was also filed by the ex-landlord and the plaintiff/ petitioner was accepted as a tenant and accordingly, the rent was received by the State. These are not marked as Exhibits as per the impugned order. Hence, this petition has been preferred before this Court.
The admissibility of documents into evidence, the proof of those documents and the effect of it, are three distinct matters. The admissibility of the document depends upon its relevancy and the mode of proof is provided in Para-II of the Evidence Act. After a document has been proved, its validity and effect has to be considered by the Court on the basis of materials available on record.
The learned court below has not assigned any reason for not admitting these documents into evidence. Although it has been stated that the case was posted for defence evidence, but a vital piece of evidence cannot be lost only on technical grounds.
Under the circumstances, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the learned court below is directed to pass order afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law by considering the ratio laid down in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat , (2001) 3 SCC 1 and Parmeshwar Rana VS Dwarika Rana :2011 3 JCR 11; 2011
0 Supreme(Jhk) 375
The instant CMP stands disposed of.
( Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )
Sandeep/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether impugned order rejecting admission of critical documents into evidence should be set aside.
Whether learned court below failed to assign reasons for rejecting admissibility of documents.
Whether documents vital to evidence can be lost on technical grounds.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of GujaratRelied on¶12
Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, (2001) 3 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Parmeshwar Rana VS Dwarika RanaReferred¶12
Parmeshwar Rana VS Dwarika Rana :2011 3 JCR 11; 2011 0 Supreme(Jhk) 375
Smt. Parul Singh
Special Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department & Ors.
Gautam Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
