Dismissed¶40

Sadhupad Rakshit v. Jagat Singh

Jharkhand HC16 Sept 2025C.M.P./857/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order XLI Rule 27 CPC additional evidence appellate stage rejected upheld; Jharkhand High Court Ranchi; C.M.P. 857 of 2025; Title Suit No.106/2008 Dhanbad; Civil Appeal No.178/2020 Principal District Judge Dhanbad; ration card choukidari receipt Gram Panchayat voter list; due diligence claim; declaration of tenancy title Schedule B land confirmation of possession permanent injunction; Gautam Kumar Choudhary J.; 16.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

The documents which the petitioners seek to produce cannot be said to be documents of title or possession. ¶39

Sadhupad Rakshit Vs Jagat Singh — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiffs/appellants should be permitted to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage (old Ration Card, Choukidari Receipt issued in the name of their father Patol Rakshit, and a photocopy of the Gram Panchayat Ankuduara voter list) under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, i.e., whether the first appellate court's rejection of the petition for additional evidence should be interfered with.

¶37

Court's answer

The documents which the petitioners seek to produce cannot be said to be documents of title or possession.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

No cogent reason has been assigned for why these documents were not produced at the trial court stage.

¶39

Key takeaways

Since the documents are not title or possession documents, no cogent reason for their non-production at trial was assigned, and the learned first appellate court has already discussed at length its reasons for rejecting the petition, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.), C.M.P. No. 857 of 2025, order dated 16.09.2025. The petitioners, plaintiffs in Title Suit No.106/2008 seeking declaration of permanent tenancy right over Schedule 'B' land, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction, suffered dismissal by the trial court and preferred Civil Appeal No.178/2020 before the Principal District Judge, Dhanbad. Their petition under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage — an old Ration Card, a Choukidari Receipt issued in the name of their father Patol Rakshit, and a photocopy of the Gram Panchayat Ankuduara voter list — was rejected by the first appellate court. The High Court held that the documents cannot be regarded as documents of title or possession, that no cogent reason was assigned for their non-production at the trial stage, and found no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The civil miscellaneous petition stands rejected; pending interlocutory application, if any, disposed of.

¶1

2025:JHHC:28358

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 857 of 2025

¶3

------

¶4

Sadhu Pad Rakshit, son of Late Patol Rakshit, resident of Ankduara, P.O. Ankduara, P.S. Nirsha, District Dhanbad

¶5

Swapan Rakshit, son of Sadhu Rakshit, resident of Ankduara, P.O.

¶6

Ankduara, P.S. Nirsha, District Dhanbad

¶7

Uday Rakshit, son of Sadhu Rakshit, resident of Susunliya, P.O., P.S. and District Dhanbad

¶8

Sarama Devi, wife of Subhas Modak, resident of Guludih, P.S. Baliapur, P.O. Palani, District Dhanbad

¶9

Mamta Singh, wife of Samir Singh, resident of Tetulia, P.O. Ankduara, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad

¶10

Rupali Devi, wife of Raghunath Modak, resident of Bara Ambona, P.O. Chhotaambana, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad

¶11

Saroti Rakshit, daughter of Sadhu Rakshit, resident of Ankduara, P.O. Ankduara, P.S. Nirsha, District Dhanbad

¶12

Monu Rakshit, son of Sadhu Rakshit, resident of Ankduara, P.O.

¶13

Ankduara, P.S. Nirsha, District Dhanbad

¶14

.... .... …. Petitioners

¶15

Versus

¶16

Jagat Singh

¶17

Mantu Singh

¶18

Both sons of Gosta Singh

¶19

Sasthi Singh

¶20

Ayan Singh

¶21

Kartik Singh

¶22

All sons of Late Kalipada Singh, Nos.1 – 5 resident of Village Ankduara,

¶23

P.O. Ankduara, P.S. Nirsha, District Dhanbad

¶24

Smt. Rita Mairani, daughter of Late Kalipada Singh, resident of Village

¶25

Khosuri, P.O. Poddardih, P.S. Nirsha, District Dhanbad

¶26

Smt. Khandu Mairani, wife of Late Gostha Singh, resident of Village

¶27

Khosuri, P.O. Poddardih, P.S. Nirsha, District Dhanbad

¶28

Smt. Meta Sahani, wife of Dhiren Sahani, resident of Village Bhagabandh, P.O. Borabenia, P.S. Nirsha, District Dhanbad

¶29

.... .... .... Opposite Parties

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶31

For the Petitioners : Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate For the Opp. Parties :

¶32

Order No.05 / Dated : 16.09.2025

¶33

Petitioners are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest being Title Suit No.106/2008 which was dismissed by the learned trial court against which the Civil Appeal No.178/2020 was preferred before the Principal District Judge, Dhanbad.

¶34

Plaintiffs/appellants filed petition to adduce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, which has been rejected by the learned

¶35

2025:JHHC:28358

¶36

first appellate court, against which the instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed.

¶37

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioners that the documents sought to be adduced into evidence at the appellate stage, were not available with the plaintiffs and could not be obtained despite exercise of due diligence. Therefore, when they came in possession of the old Ration Card, Choukidari Receipt issued in the name of the appellants’ father Patol Rakshit, photocopy of voter list of Gram Panchayat Ankuduara, these documents were verified before the first appellate court, which have been rejected.

¶38

Having considered the submissions advanced, it appears that the plaintiffs/petitioners filed the suit for declaration of plaintiffs’ permanent tenancy right over Schedule ‘B’ land and for a decree for confirmation of possession over it, and also for the relief of permanent injunction was sought for.

¶39

The documents which the petitioners seeks to produce, cannot be said to be the documents of title or possession. Further, no cogent reason has been assigned that why these documents were not produced at the trial court stage. Learned first appellate court has discussed at length the reason for rejecting the petition for additional evidence. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶40

Civil Miscellaneous Petition accordingly, stands rejected. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.

¶41

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶42

16.09.2025 Anit

Sadhupad Rakshit v. Jagat Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhupad Rakshit v. Jagat Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Represented through Its Sr Divisional Manager Vs Shakuna Devi and Ors.

Rajesh Kant Sinha Vs Pradeep Kumar Agrawal

Upendra Nath Mishra Vs Smt Nandni Singh

Sunil Ignatius Minz Alias Sushil Ignatius Minz Vs State of Jharkhand

Gopi Sahu Vs Manu Ram Kashyap

Gopi Sahu Vs Manu Ram Kashyap