Disposed¶38

Lakhan Chandra Paul v. Gopal Paul

Jharkhand HC17 Sept 2025C.M.P./353/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Carbon copy admissibility as secondary evidence; Section 65 and Section 66 Evidence Act (notice requirement); Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC directory not mandatory; Order I Rule 8 CPC dispensation of notice; Article 227 Constitution of India; partition suit Original Suit No. 31 of 2017, Jamtara; memorandum of settlement; C.M.P. No. 353 of 2025; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary; impugned order dated 21.02.2025; decided 17.09.2025; neutral citation 2025:JHHC:28605.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.02.2025 set aside to the extent it refused admission of the memorandum of settlement solely on the ground that it was a carbon copy; petitioner directed to account for the original document to admit the carbon copy as secondary evidence; pending I.A., if any, disposed of. ¶38

Lakhan Chandra Paul Vs Gopal Paul — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order refusing to admit the carbon copy of the memorandum of settlement into evidence solely on the ground that it was a carbon copy is sustainable. +2 more

¶37

Court's answer

The impugned order, so far as it did not admit the memorandum of settlement into evidence only on the ground that it was a carbon copy, is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The requirement to file the list of evidences under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC is not mandatory, rather directory in nature.

¶34

Key takeaways

Under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, a carbon copy is admissible into evidence if the original was not available; however, before the document can be adduced as secondary evidence under Section 65(a), a notice needs to be served under Section 66 of the Evidence Act.ratio¶34
The petitioner is to take appropriate steps to account for the original document, for admitting the carbon copy into evidence as secondary evidence.ratio¶38
The issue of jointness of status between the parties is the fulcrum on which a suit of partition is decided.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 31 of 2017 (partition suit, Jamtara) challenging the order dated 21.02.2025 of the Civil Judge, Sr. Division-I, Jamtara, whereby the carbon copy of a memorandum of settlement was refused admission into evidence. Held: (i) the requirement to file the list of evidences under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC is directory, not mandatory; (ii) under Section 65 of the Evidence Act a carbon copy is admissible if the original is not available, but before it can be adduced as secondary evidence under Section 65(a), notice must be served under Section 66 of the Evidence Act; (iii) the trial court had not rejected the document as irrelevant but had refused admission only because a carbon copy was filed, and refusal solely on that ground is not sustainable. The impugned order was set aside to that extent, with a direction to the petitioner to account for the original document; the petition stands disposed of. Coram: Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.; decided 17.09.2025.

¶1

2025:JHHC:28605

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 353 of 2025

¶3

Lakhan Chandra Paul, Aged about 70 Years, S/o- Late Panu Bala Paul & Late Jyotilal Paul, R/o- Village Karjuri, P.O-Khairbani, P.S- Fatehpur, DistrictJamtara. Presently R/at- Village Geruapahari, P.O- Babujore, P.S- Kankartola, District- Birbhum. ..... .... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Gopal Paul, S / O = Late Batal Paul

¶6

Kamala Paul, Widow of- Late Bhagu Paul

¶7

Kanhai Paul, S/o- Late Sahadeb Paul, 1,2,3 are R/o - Village Karjuri, P.OKhairboni, P.S- Fatehpur, District- Jamtara.

¶8

Saraswati Paul, D/o- Late Sahadeb Paul, W/o Nrisingha Paul.R/o- Village Banspahari, P.O & P.S- Kundahit, District- Jamtara.

¶9

Arun Paul, S/o- Late Bagu Paul, R /o - Village Karjuri, P.O- Khairboni, P.SFatehpur, District- Jamtara.

¶10

Gendu Paul, D/o- Late Bagu Paul, W/o- Felaram Paul, R / o - Village Radhaballavpur, P.O- Sagjuria, P.S- Nala-District- Jamtara.

¶11

Tilaka Pandit, D/o- Late Bagu Paul, W/o- Hari Pada Pandit, R/o- Village Khairbani, P.O- Khairbani, P.S-Fatehpur, District- Jamtara

¶12

Sambhu Paul

¶13

Kali Pada Paul

¶14

Nimai Paul, 8,9, and 10 Sons of Doman Paul, R/o-Village Karjuri, P.OKhairbani, P.S- Fatehpur, District- Jamtara

¶15

Champa Paul, D/o- Late Doman Paul, W/o- Anil Paul, R/o- Village Amtabad, Khajuri, P.O. & P.S- Kundahit, District- Jamtara.

¶16

Budhan Paul, S/o- Late Gunji Paul & Ram Pada Paul, R/o- Village Surul, P.O- Sriniketan, P.S- Bolpur, District- Birbhum (West Bengal)

¶17

Pushpa Paul, D/o- Late Gunji Paul & Ram Pada Paul, W/o- Kushadhawaj Paul, R/o- Village Kelahi, P.O & P.S- Mihijam, District- Jamtara.

¶18

Ajit Paul, S/o- Late Shankar Paul

¶19

Ananta Paul, S/o- Late Shankar Paul, 14 and 15 are R/o- Village Karjuri, P.O- Khairbani, P.S-Fatehpur, District- Jamtara.

¶20

Usha Pandit, D/o- Late Shankar Paul, W/o- Ashok Pandit, R/o- Village Bardohi, P.O & P.S- Bindapathar, District- Jamtara.

¶21

Raidhani Paul, D/o- Late Panu Bala Paul and Jyotilal Paul, W/o- Kinuram Paul, Presently R/at-Village Allahdih, (Dangalpara), P.O- Jemari, P.S-Salanpur, District- Burdwan (W.B).

¶22

… …. Opposite Parties

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶24

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh PD. Joshi, Advocate For the O.P. Nos. 1-5, 10 & 13 : Mr. Preetam Mandal, Advocate

¶25

------

¶26

Order No. 05 / Dated : 17.09.2025.

¶27

Petitioner is the plaintiff and the instant civil misc. petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 21.02.2025 passed by Civil Judge, Sr. Division-I, Jamtara in Original Suit No. 31 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the carbon copy of memorandum

¶28

2025:JHHC:28605

¶29

of settlement has been refused to be admitted into evidence.

¶30

Plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of suit property as detailed in the schedule ‘A’ ‘B’ and ‘C’ of the plaint. On 01.04.2024, a petition under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the CPC was filed to bring on record certain documents including the carbon copy of memorandum of settlement between the parties which has been rejected since it was a carbon copy, therefore, it appeared to be inappropriate to admit into evidence.

¶31

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the case being a partition suit, the document concerned is a relevant piece of evidence. Since the original was not in the possession of the petitioner, therefore, as secondary evidence i.e., carbon copy was filed which has been rejected without any cogent reason.

¶32

All the opposite parties in the present case, have entered into appearance by filing vakalatnama except opposite party nos. 6 and 7. Notices were issued, but have not duly served on them. However, since the interest of opposite party nos. 6 and 7 is similar to the interest of the other opposite parties who have already entered into appearance and are contesting the instant petition, therefore, further service of notice on opposite party nos. 6 and 7 is dispensed with in terms of Order I Rule 8 of the CPC since it will further delay the dispose of the present civil misc. petition, consequently delaying the trial.

¶33

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the opposite parties nos. 1-5, 10 & 13 that there is no infirmity in the impugned order as the plaintiff had failed to account for the original settlement deed. Unless and until the original deed could be accounted, secondary evidence cannot be adduced into evidence. Further, this document was not filed along with the plaint and has been brought on record after seven years of the case.

¶34

Having considered the submissions advanced, the requirement to file the list of evidences under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the CPC is not mandatory, rather directory in nature. The issue of jointness of status between the parties is the fulcrum on which a suit of partition is decided. Learned Trial Court has not dismissed the said document on the ground of being not relevant, but has refused to admit into evidence as a carbon copy had been filed. Under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, a carbon copy is admissible into evidence, if the original was not available. However, before the said document can be adduced into evidence as secondary evidence under Section 65(a), a notice

¶35

2025:JHHC:28605

¶36

needs to be served under Section 66 of the Evidence Act.

¶37

Under the circumstance, the impugned order so far not admitting the memorandum of settlement into evidence only on the ground that it was a carbon copy is not sustainable, and is accordingly, set aside.

¶38

Petitioner to take appropriate steps to account for the original document, for admitting the carbon copy into evidence as secondary evidence. Civil Miscellaneous Petition accordingly stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶39

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶40

17.09.2025 Pawan / -

Lakhan Chandra Paul v. Gopal Paul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhan Chandra Paul v. Gopal Paul

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

Sunil Ignatius Minz Alias Sushil Ignatius Minz Vs State of Jharkhand

Sadhupad Rakshit Vs Jagat Singh

Gopi Sahu Vs Manu Ram Kashyap

Sharda Prasad Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ankush Agrawal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Uttam Kumar Mandal Vs Lakshman Mandal And Ors.