Disposed

Sabri Devi and Anr. v. Lakhan Kewat and Ors.

Patna HC11 Sept 2013CWJC/8125/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged before the Patna High Court the Additional Munsif's order allowing defendants to file a late document (Exhibit D) in a title suit. The High Court dismissed the application, finding no gross injustice, but retained the petitioners' liberty to cross-examine the document.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to deal with Exhibit D at an appropriate stage of the trial.

Sabri Devi and Anr. Vs Lakhan Kewat and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

Patna High Court CWJC No.8125 of 2013 (4) dt.11-09-2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8125 of 2013 In

¶3

C.R. 915 of 2009

¶4

====================================================== 1. Sabri Devi , aged about 43 years, wife of Krishna Kewat.

¶5

Mira Devi, aged about 39 years, wife of Ram Janam Kewat. Both are resident of Mohalla Malahchak, Police Station Jehanabad in the district of Jehanabad

¶6

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶7

Lakhan Kewat

¶8

Arjun Kewat

¶9

Sarju Kewat, All are sons of late Pokhan Kewat, resident of Mohalla- Mallah Chak, police Station Jehanabad in the district of Jehanabad.

¶10

Malti Devi, wife of Ganesh Kewat, resident of VillageBehrama, P.S. Punpun, District-Patna.

¶11

Lalti Devi, wife of Mahendra Kewat, resident of villagePinjaura, P.S. Kako, District Jehanabad.

¶12

.... .... Respondent/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance :

¶14

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar

¶15

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶16

4 11-09-2013 In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 4.4.2009 passed by learned Additional Munsif-II, Jehanabad in Title Suit No. 36 of 2001/70 of 2004, whereby the Court below has allowed the petition filed by the defendants and has thereby directed that the documents filed by them to be taken on record for the purpose of evidence. The said document has been marked as Exhibit ‘D’.

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.8125 of 2013 (4) dt.11-09-2013

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at such belated stage the Court below should not have allowed the said document to be exhibited from the side of the defendants which document was in their possession from much before. From the impugned order, it appears that the Court below had expressed its view that it is expedient in the interest of justice to accept the said documents filed by the defendants i.e. registered mortgaged deed dated 10.6.1947 as evidence.

¶19

This Court in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not required to interfere with the order impugned as such order cannot be said to be grossly unjust and illegal.

¶20

It is however, observed that the petitioners shall have the liberty to deal with said Exhibit D at appropriate stage of trial. With this observation, this application is disposed of.

¶21

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)

¶22

Arun Kumar/-

Sabri Devi and Anr. v. Lakhan Kewat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabri Devi and Anr. v. Lakhan Kewat and Ors.

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

Mahadeo Sharma Vs Dhao Mahto and Ors.

Amod Kumar Das Vs Renu Kumar Das and Anr.

Rajendra Singh Vs The State Election Commission and Ors.

Kripa Shankar Gupta Vs Birendra Kumar Kejriwal

Ram Eqbal Sah @ Bala Mistri Vs Ram Pati Devi

Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation Vs Surya Balli Yadav and Ors.