Ganesh Chand Lal Choudhary Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2025)

Ganesh Chand Lal Choudhary Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; the civil misc. petition was dismissed. The Trial Court was directed to dispose of the land acquisition case (L.A.R. No. 04 of 2005) as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from receipt/production of a copy of the order; pending I.A., if any, stood disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court rightly exhibited the certified copy of sale deed No. 3234/84 dated 12.12.1984 in L.A.R. No. 04 of 2005, notwithstanding that the document was available with the plaintiff since inception but was filed at the fag end of trial, and that the certified copy was adduced without accounting for the original sale deed and without compliance with Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act.

Court's answer

An objection to the marking of a document as an exhibit can basically be on two grounds: first, regarding its admissibility, and second, about the mode of its proof.

Ratio / Principle

Once the certified copy of the sale deed has been adduced into evidence and marked as an exhibit, there can be no valid objection to the mode of proof, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Appaiya Vs. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi & Ors., 2023 Live Law SC 811; regarding relevancy, no serious objection was made.

Key takeaways

Mere marking of a document cannot entail delay in the disposal of the case; the petitioner's delay-based objection was rejected.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitution of India, Article 227 — Civil misc. petition by the defendant in L.A.R. No. 04 of 2005 against the Trial Court's order dated 18.01.2025 exhibiting the certified copy of sale deed No. 3234/84 dated 12.12.1984. Objection: the document was available with the plaintiff since inception but was filed at the fag end of trial at the stage of argument, and the certified copy was adduced without accounting for the original sale deed and without compliance with Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. Held: an objection to marking of a document as an exhibit can basically be on two grounds — admissibility and mode of proof; since the certified copy has been adduced into evidence and marked as an exhibit, there can be no valid objection to the mode of proof in view of the Apex Court's ratio in Appaiya Vs. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi & Ors., 2023 Live Law SC 811; no serious objection was made on relevancy; mere marking of a document cannot entail delay. Petition dismissed with a direction to dispose of the 2005 land acquisition case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months; pending I.A. disposed of.

2025:JHHC:27612

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 692 of 2025

Ganesh Chand Lal Choudhary, S/o Late Radhe Chand Lal Choudhary, R/o Rajabati, Belan Bazaar, P.S. Kasim Bazaar, P.O. & Dist. Munger, Bihar, PIN811201 ..... .... Petitioner Versus

The State of Jharkhand

The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, PO & PS Dumka, Dist Dumka, PIN-814101, Jharkhand.

The Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, PO & PS Dumka, Dist. Dumka, PIN-814101, Jharkhand.

Catholic Diocese, Dhundhnai, Dumka, through its Secretary, Bishop House, PO & PS Dumka, Dist. Dumka, PIN-814101, Jharkhand.

… …. Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate Ms. Richa Lal, Advocate For the State : AC to Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II For the O.P. 4 : Ms. Vipul Divya, Advocate

------

Order No. 03 / Dated : 10.09.2025.

The instant civil misc. petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendant against the order dated 18.01.2025 passed in L.A.R. No. 04 of 2005, whereby and whereunder, the Trial Court has exhibited the certified copy of the sale deed No. 3234/84 dated 12.12.1984.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the objection is on the ground that this document was available with the plaintiff/opposite party since inception, however, it was filed at the fag end of the trial at the stage of argument. It is also submitted that without accounting for the original sale deed, the certified copy of the same has been adduced into evidence without complying with the requirement of Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act.

Earlier the original sale deed was filed which was not marked as the exhibit and aggrieved by the order, the plaintiff had moved this Court in C.M.P. No. 304 of 2024 which was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the opposite party/awardee has defended the impugned order.

2025:JHHC:27612

So far the objection to marking of a document as exhibit is concerned, it can basically be on two grounds. First is regarding to its admissibility, and the second is about the mode of its proof.

In the present case, since the certified copy of the sale deed has been adduced into evidence and marked as exhibit, there cannot be any valid objection to the mode of proof in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2023 Live Law SC 811 (Appaiya Vs. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi & Ors. Regarding the relevancy, no serious objection has been made. The main concern that has been expressed on behalf of the petitioner is that it will lead to delay in disposal of the case.

Mere marking of a document cannot entail delay, so this Court is not impressed by the argument.

I do not find any merit in the civil misc. petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.

Since it is a land acquisition case of the year 2005, therefore, the case be disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

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

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

Pawan / -