Dismissed

Bimla Devi v. Anil Pd. Singh and Ors.

Patna HC19 Jan 2017C.Misc./21/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge dismissed an application challenging the lower court's order allowing late production of a certified copy of a sale deed. The court held admitting the evidence was essential to determine its genuineness in a title suit and refused interference.

What did the court decide?

Application challenging the admittance of the sale deed was dismissed; impugned order dated 14/15.09.2016 is sustained.

Bimla Devi Vs Anil Pd. Singh and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.21 of 2017 (2) dt.19-01-2017 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.21 of 2017

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Bimla Devi .... .... Petitioner/s Versus Anil Pd. Singh & Ors .... .... Respondent/s

¶5

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shiv Shankar Sah For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER

¶6

2 19-01-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

Perused the impugned order dated

¶8

14.09.2016/15.09.2016 passed by learned Munsif, Araria in Title Suit No.146 of 2002 whereby the learned Court below has allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for marking the impugned sale deed as exhibit in the suit on payment of cost of Rs.5,000.

¶9

It appears that the suit has been filed by the plaintiffsrespondents for setting aside the sale deed in question. At the time of argument, the plaintiffs-respondents filed the application praying for permitting the plaintiffs to produce the sale deed under challenge on the ground that photocopies of the sale deed has already been filed earlier but by mistake the certified copy of the sale deed could not be produced earlier. The Court below by the impugned order has allowed this prayer.

¶10

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.21 of 2017 (2) dt.19-01-2017 2

¶11

The main grievance of the petitioner is that the application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents is malafide and with intention to harass the defendant-petitioner and the plaintiff has not assigned any reason as to why the certified copy of the sale deed was not produced earlier prior to framing of issue or prior to hearing.

¶12

It is admitted fact that the sale deed in question is under challenge in the suit. The defendant-petitioner is not disputing the existence or genuineness of the sale deed. Therefore, for determining as whether the sale deed is genuine one or it is liable to be set aside or not, the sale deed is required to be gone into. Therefore, the court below in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 has allowed the said prayer.

¶13

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 275 has held that power under Section 151 can be exercised to deal with any particular procedural aspect which is not provided expressly or impliedly in C.P.C., if the ends of justice so warrant and to prevent abuse of process of court. Court in appropriate cases can exercise its discretion to permit re-opening of evidence and/or recalling of witnesses for further examination/crossexamination after evidence led by parties is concluded and

¶14

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.21 of 2017 (2) dt.19-01-2017 3

¶15

arguments have commenced or even when arguments have concluded and case has been reserved for judgment.

¶16

In view of the settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, when the court below has exercised a jurisdiction under Section 151 C.P.C., I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of same jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

Thus, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed.

¶18

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J)

¶19

Saurabh/-

¶20

U T

Bimla Devi v. Anil Pd. Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bimla Devi v. Anil Pd. Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Vs Uma Prasad and Ors.

Subodh Kumar Vs Sunita Kumari

Baikunth Prasad Manjhi @ Bakunt Prasad Manjhi Vs Dr. Sri Randhir Bahadur Singh and Anr.

Md. Ismail and Anr. Vs Md. Farooque and Ors.

Lala Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh @ Mantun Vs Shyamnath Singh and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Singh @ Rambhu Singh Vs Sri Nageshwar Prasad Singh @ Sujan Singh and Ors.