Allowed¶26

Seneth Munda v. Rajesh Kachhap

Jharkhand HC10 Sept 2025C.M.P./380/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227; C.M.P. No. 380 of 2025; Jharkhand High Court Ranchi; Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.; O.S. No. 173 of 2014; Order VIII Rule 1A CPC; certified copy of award dated 12.03.2013; marking of exhibit; defence evidence closed; stage of trial; substantial justice versus hyper-technical grounds; public document; three adjournments; trial to conclude within two months; land acquisition award; Seneth Munda v. Rajesh Kachhap.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 11.12.2024 set aside; defence granted three adjournments to lead evidence within a fortnight; Trial Court directed to conclude the trial within two months; pending I.A., if any, disposed of. ¶26

Seneth Munda Vs Rajesh Kachhap — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:JHHC:27610

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No. 380 of 2025

¶3

Seneth Munda, S/o Late Simon Munda

¶4

Smt. Sarita Munda, W/o Senet Munda, both are R/o Village-Hethu, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi .... …. Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajesh Kachhap, S/o Late Putul Oraon, R/o Village-Hundro, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi

¶7

Margo Kachhap, W/o Late Jhadi Kachhap

¶8

Raju Kacchap, S/o Late Jhadi Kachhap, All R/o Village-Hethu, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi

¶9

Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O.-GPO, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi .... .... Opp. Parties

¶10

-----

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For Opp. Party No. 1 : Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate For Opp. Party No. 4 : Ms. Shalni Sahdeo, AC to (L&C)-1

¶14

¶15

Oral Order

¶16

07 / Dated : 10.09.2025

¶17

Petitioners are the defendants and the instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order dated 11.12.2024 passed in O.S. No.173 of 2014 by which the petition filed by petitioners on 06.12.2024 to adduce into evidence, the certified copy of award dated 12.03.2013 has been rejected and the defence evidence has also been closed.

¶18

It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioners that the document is relevant and will have a direct bearing on claim of title over the suit property, for the reason that award was prepared before filing the suit and relates to the suit property. It is submitted by learned counsel that this award is in favour of ancestor of the petitioners, which was not within their knowledge at the time of filing of the written statement and therefore, it was not disclosed in terms of Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC. Learned trial court has summarily rejected this document without considering the grounds taken for this to be adduced into evidence.

¶19

Learned counsel for the opposite parties has defended the impugned order and submitted that no reason was assigned for not referring the

¶20

2025:JHHC:27610

¶21

written statement and due diligence was not exercised for obtaining it and has been produced at the fag end.

¶22

Having considered the submissions advanced, the document, which has been refused to be marked as exhibit, is regarding the part of suit land which was acquired and the final award was made on 12.03.2013. The relevancy of the document is not under challenge. The only ground on which it has been turned down is the stage of trial.

¶23

This court is of the view that substantial justice should not suffer on hyper technical grounds. Marking of exhibit will not consume a day as it is a public document.

¶24

The impugned order is set aside.

¶25

The defence will be granted three adjournments for leading on his evidence within a fortnight. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

¶26

This Civil Misc. Petition is, accordingly, allowed.

¶27

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶28

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶29

AKT/Satendra

¶30

Seneth Munda v. Rajesh Kachhap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seneth Munda v. Rajesh Kachhap

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

Umesh Kumar Roy Alias Umesh Prasad Roy Vs Masomat Yashoda and Ors.

The Divisional Manager the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Its Sr Divisional Manager Vs MD Mustafa Ansari Alias MD Mustafa and Anr.

Ms Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Its Senior Divisional Manager Vs Mosomat Yashoda and Ors.

Indra Narayan Singh Vs Pushpa Devi and Ors.

Ganesh Chand Lal Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abdul Sobhan Alias Subhan Ansari Alias Bhuttu Alias Abdul Sobhan Ansari Vs Babban Singh and Anr.