In a writ petition, the High Court considered a challenge to an order allowing a certified copy of a sale deed to be marked as evidence. Dismissing the appeal, the Court held it was not inclined to interfere.
The application challenging the impugned order is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14546 of 2014
===========================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 19-10-2016
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
By the impugned order the learned court below has allowed the prayer on behalf of the defendant-petitioner for marking the certified copy of the sale deed as exhibit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no averment on behalf of the defendant-respondent that the original has been misplaced and therefore, the certified copy is being filed and earlier also the similar prayer of the defendantpetitioner has been rejected.
After considering the submissions and the perusal of
Patna High Court CWJC No.14546 of 2014 dt.19-10-2016
2
the impugned order, this Court finds that by the impugned order the learned court below has only taken into evidence the certified copy of the sale deeds relying upon the decision of this Court in the case
of Kumod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Bihar Staff Selection Commission & Ors. 2 013(4) PLJR 693. The suit is still pending and the defendantpetitioner shall have the liberty to raise his plea in accordance with law. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to interdict the impugned order invoking its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
| Ranjan/ | - |
(V. Nath, J) |
|---|---|---|
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR | |
| CAVDATE | N.A. | |
| UploadingDat | e 13.12.16 |
|
| Transmission | N.A. | |
| Date |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 to interdict the lower court's order allowing a certified copy where the suit was pending.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kumod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Bihar Staff Selection Commission & Ors.Relied on¶18
Kumod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Bihar Staff Selection Commission & Ors. 2 013(4) PLJR 693
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pawan Kumar Singh
Shri Awadhesh Kumar Singh @ Bhola Singh
V. Nath, J
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
