Disposed¶19

Surender Mishr v. Krishna Singh

Patna HC21 Nov 2025C.Misc./518/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Exhibit marking of private documents; opportunity to prove original lease deed and RTI application dated 10.06.2016 as per Indian Evidence Act; Title Suit No. 508 of 1994, Sub-Judge Gopalganj; impugned order dated 22.11.2023 partly allowed exhibit-marking application dated 24.05.2023; cost Rs. 1000/- payable to defendant within one month; Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2024; Justice S. B. Pd. Singh; decided 21-11-2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the plaintiff/petitioner to file a fresh petition before the learned Trial Court to have the original lease deed and the RTI application exhibited as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, subject to payment of Rs. 1000/- cost to the defendant within one month from receipt/production of the order. ¶19

Surender Mishr Vs Krishna Singh — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 22.11.2023 passed in Title Suit No. 508 of 1994 by the learned Sub-Judge, Gopalganj - which partly allowed the plaintiff's application dated 24.05.2023 to mark exhibits on three documents (exhibiting only the unregistered private partition deed and treating the original lease deed and RTI application as non-public documents) - should be set aside, and whether the two remaining documents can be exhibited.

¶14

Court's answer

For proper and complete adjudication of the case, an opportunity is given to the plaintiff/petitioner to file a petition before the learned Trial Court and get the two documents (original lease deed and RTI application) exhibited as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Since the petition is much delayed, a cost of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) is imposed on the petitioner/plaintiff, payable to the defendant within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of the order.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (S. B. Pd. Singh, J), C.Misc. No.518 of 2024, decided 21-11-2025: A civil miscellaneous petition seeking setting aside of the order dated 22.11.2023 passed in Title Suit No. 508 of 1994 by the learned Sub-Judge, Gopalganj - which had partly allowed the plaintiff's application dated 24.05.2023 to mark exhibits on three documents (original lease deed, unregistered private partition deed, and RTI application dated 10.06.2016), marking an exhibit only on the partition deed on the view that the other two were not public documents - was resolved by giving the plaintiff/petitioner an opportunity to file a fresh petition before the Trial Court to have the two documents exhibited as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, with a cost of Rs. 1000/- imposed on the petitioner, payable to the defendant within one month.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.518 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

Surender Mishr Son of Ramji Mishr Resident of Village- Jhajhava Bajar, Kusahar, P.S- Mohammadpur, District- Gopalganj.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

Krishna Singh Son of Late Surat Rai Resident of Village- Kushahar, P.SMohammadpur, District- Gopalganj.

¶7

Mateseri Kunwar, W/o- Ramji Mishr Resident of Jhajhava Bajar, Kusahar, P.S- Mohammadpur, District- Gopalganj.

¶8

Kalawati Devi, W/o Phulena Pandey, D/o- Ramji Mishr Resident of Jhajhava Bajar, Kusahar, P.S- Mohammadpur, District- Gopalganj.

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

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

¶11

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pankaj Kumar Dubey For the Respondent/s : Mr. ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 21-11-2025

¶14

The present Civil Miscellaneous case has been filed for setting aside the order dated 22.11.2023 passed in Title Suit No. 508 of 1994 by learned Sub-Judge, 14 Gopalganj whereby and whereunder the application dated 24.05.2023 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner to mark exhibits on his three documents has been partly allowed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of impugned order, it transpires that plaintiff/petitioner has filed three documents for marking exhibit nos. thereon i.e. original lease deed, unregistered private partition deed and application of RTI (Right to Information) dated 10.06.2016. Amongst the aforesaid three documents, learned Trial Court has marked exhibit no. only on the

¶16

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.518 of 2024(2) dt.21-11-2025 2/2

¶17

unregistered private partition deed and regarding the rest two documents, learned Trial Court has opined that those documents are not public document. Hence, they were not consideredfor marking exhibit nos. thereon.

¶18

During course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner wants to file fresh application to prove the aforesaid document on the basis of his evidence as these two documents are private documents.

¶19

After going through the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that his entire case is based on lease deed which he wants to prove. So for proper and complete adjudication of this case, an opportunity is given to the plaintiff/petitioner to file a petition before the learned Trial Court and get those documents exhibited as per provisions of Indian Evidence Act. Since, the petition is much delayed, a cost of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) is imposed on the petitioner/plaintiff which is payable to the defendant within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of this order.

¶20

(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)

¶21

Ankit Kumar/-

¶22

Surender Mishr v. Krishna Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender Mishr v. Krishna Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishori Shah and Ors. Vs Nand Kumar Singh and Ors.

Jitendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Manish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Kauleshwar Sao Vs Smt. Sitali Devi and Ors.

Bibhash Chnadra Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Anita Kumari @ Anita Devi Vs The State of Bihar through the Vigilance Department, Bihar, Patna