Dismissed

Ms Bhawesh Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. Represented through Sri Triloki Singh v. Rabindra Nath Paul

Jharkhand HC3 Nov 2022C.M.P./185/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Misc. Petition under Article 227 challenging rejection of leave to admit private documents under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC. Court held admissibility not refused, only formal proof directed under Evidence Act; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Civil miscellaneous petition dismissed; impugned order of Civil Court dated 10.02.2020 affirmed.

Ms Bhawesh Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. Represented through Sri… — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

C. M. P. No. 185 of 2020

¶3

¶4

M/s Bhawesh Commotrade Pvt. Ltd.

¶5

… …. Petitioner Versus

¶6

Rabindra Nath Paul

¶7

Binay Krishna Paul

¶8

Amiya Kumar Paul

¶9

Bani Barata Paul

¶10

Uday Shankar Paul

¶11

… …. Opp. Parties

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶13

----For the Petitioner : M/s. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate D.K. Prasad & Baban Prasad, Advocates For the Opp. Parties : M/s Rahul Kr. Gupta & Lukesh Kumar, Advocates

¶14

Oral Order

¶15

06 / Dated : 03.11.2022

¶16

The instant civil misc. petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.02.2020 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division-II, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 210 of 2015 whereby and whereunder, the petition for leave to accept certain documents as evidence under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of C.P.C. has been rejected.

¶17

The petitioner is the defendant in Original Suit No. 210 of 2015 which has been filed for cancellation and declaration of the sale deed executed by the plaintiffs opposite parties in favour of the petitioner defendant to be null and void.

¶18

The petitioner filed the petition for adducing into evidence following

¶19

documents :

¶20

“List of documents filed on behalf of the petitioner-defendant:

¶21

I. C.C. of M.O.U. dt. 31.03.2012 executed between plaintiff’s Attorney Holder Tarun Kanti Ghosal and the defendants. --------------Nine sheets.

¶22

II. C.C. of two agreement dt. 03.03.2006 by and between plaintiffs and their Attorney Holder Tarun Kanti Ghosal. -------------------Ten sheets.

¶23

III. C.C. of six demand drafts dt. 23.07.2013 standing in favour of Tarun Kanti Ghosal. -------------------Three sheets.

¶24

IV. C.C. of Bank Statement in the name of Tarun Kanti Ghosal.--Three sheets. V. C.C. of stating of Bank showing payment of Rs. Three Lakhs in favour of Bani Brata Paul (plaintiff no. 4) ------------------- One sheet.

¶25

VI. C.C. of money receipt dt. 27.07.2012 of Rs. 17 Lakhs received by Tarun Kanti Ghosal. -------------------One sheets.

¶26

VII. Original cheque receipt dated 23.07.2012 by Tarun Kanti Ghosal with Xerox cheque of IDBI being cheque no. “224062”. -----------Two sheets.

¶27

VIII. Original Cheque Receipt dt. 27.07.2012 by Tarun Kanti Ghosal with Xerox Cheque of I.D.B.I. being Cheque No.”224023” ------ Two Sheets.

¶28

IX. Xerox Copy of notice dt. 02.01.2012 addressed to Chanchala Kumari. --------- One Sheet

¶29

X. Xerox Copy of Notice dated 20-01-2012 addressed to Chanchala Kumari. --------- One Sheet

¶30

XI. Xerox Copy of Courier receipts showing refusal of Chanchala Kumari on 03-01.2012. ---------- One Sheet

¶31

XII. Xerox Copy of Courier receipts showing refusal of Chanchala Kumari on 21-01.2012. ---------- One Sheet

¶32

XIII. Xerox Copy of Statement of Bank Account of A to Z properties.

¶33

---------- One Sheet

¶34

XIV. Original 10 (Ten) Registered Sale Deed in favour of Bhavesh Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. executed by Tarun Kanti Ghosal.

¶35

(i) Deed No.5372/4746 dt. 23-07.2012 ---------------Sixty five sheets. (ii) Deed No.5373/4747 dt. 23-07.2012 ---------------Sixty sheets (iii)Deed No.5374/4748 dt. 23-07.2012 ---------------Four two sheets (iv) Deed No.5375/4749 dt. 23-07.2012 ---------------Fifty three sheets (v) Deed No.5376/4750 dt. 23-07.2012 ---------------Sixty two sheets (vi) Deed No.5377/4751 dt. 23-07.2012 ---------------Fifty six sheets (vii) Deed No.5378/4752 dt. 23-07.2012 ---------------Thirty six sheets (viii) Deed No.5379/4753 dt. 23-07.2012 ---------------Sixty six sheets (ix) Deed No.5380/4754 dt. 23-07.2012 ---------------Fifty two sheets (x) Deed No.5329/5085 dt. 27-07.2012 ---------------Fifty seven sheets

¶36

XV. C.C. of Order sheet C.P. Case No. 2597 of 2012 ------------ Two sheets XVI. C.C. of Order sheet G.R. Case No. 255 of 2013 (Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 55 of 2013) ------------ Two sheets

¶37

XVII. C.C. of FIR of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 55 of 2013 being G.R. Case No. 255 of 2013 with Order sheet ------------ Five sheets

¶38

XVIII. C.C. of Final form report of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 55 of 2013 being G.R. Case No. 255 of 2013 with Order sheet ------------ Two sheets

¶39

XIX. Certified true copy of the Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of Bhawesh Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. dt. 01.07.2016 ------------ One sheets

¶40

XX. C.C. of Power of Attorney deed No. IV 102/2006 in favour of Tarun Kanti Ghosal ------------ Ten sheets

¶41

XXI. C.C. of Power of Attorney deed No. IV 102/2007 in favour of Tarun Kanti Ghosal ------------ Seven sheets

¶42

XXII. C.C. of FIR of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 134 of 2015 being G.R. Case No. 643 of 2015 with cognizance order and Final Form /Report ---- Ten sheets

¶43

XXIII. C.C. of I.T. Assessment order 2013-14 Bhawesh Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. ------- Eighteen sheets

¶44

XXIV. Xerox copy of attachment order dt. 10.03.2016 of Income Tax Central Circle, Dhanbad ------- Two sheets

¶45

XXV. C.C. of Statement on Oath of Bani Brata Paul to Income Tax Department dt. 19.02.2014 ------- Three sheets

¶46

XXVI. C.C. of Statement on Oath of Amiyo Kumar Paul to Income Tax Department dt. 19.02.2014 ------- Nine sheets

¶47

XXVII.C.C. of Statement on Oath of Uday Shankar Paul to Income Tax Department dt. 19.02.2014 ------- Eleven sheets

¶48

XXVIII. C.C. of Statements on Oath of Binoy Krishna Paul to Income Tax Department dt. 19.02.2014 ------- Five sheets Total – Six Hundred & Seventy Sheets ”

¶49

It has been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court below vide order dated 10.02.2020 has only partly allowed. The private documents have not been admitted into evidence and marked as exhibit.

¶50

On perusal of the impugned order it appears that the Learned Court below by the impugned order has marked the public documents as Exhibits on behalf of the defendant. With respect to rest of the documents, since they were private documents, they have not been marked and the petitioner defendant was directed to prove the same as per rules of the Evidence Act. From the impugned order, it is manifest that the admissibility of the private documents has not been refused but the defendant has been directed to formally prove it as per rules of the Evidence Act. .

¶51

There is no infirmity in the impugned order.

¶52

Accordingly, this civil misc. petition is dismissed.

¶53

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶54

Sandeep/AKT

Ms Bhawesh Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. Represented through Sri Triloki Singh v. Rabindra Nath Paul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Bhawesh Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. Represented through Sri Triloki Singh v. Rabindra Nath Paul

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

MD Khurshid Khan Vs Khushwant Singh Sabherwal

Islam Mian Vs Imaman Miyan

Ravindra Kumar Shawarn Vs Smt Kanchan Devi

Kashi Nath Singh Vs Prof Bari Cooperative House Construction Society Limited through Its Secretary

Bhagwati Prasad Agrawal Alias Tamakkuwala Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gazo Mahto Vs Milu Mahto