Dubraj Mahto vs Kampani Mahto & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3127 Jhar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                  WP(C) No. 3565 of 2017

Dubraj Mahto, son of late Hiro Mahto, resident of Village-Malghaghar, PO +
PS Mohanpur, District Deoghar.                 ..... ...... Plaintiff/Petitioner
                                 Versus
Kampani Mahto & Ors.                     .... .... Defendants/Respondents
                                  ------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

-------

       For the Petitioner             : Mr. A.K. Choudhary, Advocate
       For the Respondent No.5        : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate
                                       --------
                           th
Order No.04/Dated: 10 August, 2022

Mr. A.K. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted, that the writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 11.04.2017, passed in Title (P) Suit No. 155 of 2002 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-IV, Deoghar whereby petition filed by the plaintiff-petitioner to adduce the evidence with regard to the school leaving certificate obtained under Right to Information Act where it has been disclosed that Murlidhar Yadav was admitted on 30.01.1981 in Class-VIII, his father's name is mentioned as Bhola Mahto and the date of birth of Murlidhar Yadav is 01.02.1972, has rejected on the ground that no one can be permitted to adduce any evidence beyond its pleading. The more important aspect is that the case is running at the stage of final hearing, the plaintiff should have filed all documents before framing of issue as settled by principle of law and, accordingly the learned trial Court has rejected the application.

2. Mr. A.K. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that though all the documents have to be filed before framing of the issues but if certain documents are not brought on record, the same can be brought on record under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, if those are permitted to be exhibited by the learned appellate Court, no prejudice shall cause to the parties, if the same is considered by learned trial Court rather all the material should be placed before the trial Court for final adjudication of the lis.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted, that for production of additional evidence, there is requirement of due diligence. In the present case after the amendment of the plaint, whereby it has been recorded that for adjudication of the suit, the adoption deed dated 28.09.1976, be declared void and cancelled. These evidence are necessary whether Murlidhar Yadav, son of Bhola Mahto was adopted by Jamuni Mahtoin on 28.09.1976, as such, it would be proper that the trial Court may frame the same

and give finding with regard to the issues at the time of final hearing of the suit.

4. Mr. Lalit Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 has opposed the prayer and submitted, that matter is beyond the pleading and at the stage of final hearing, when such prayer has been made, which was refused by the learned trial Court, this Court may not interfere with the same.

5. Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, two objections have been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 with regard to the prayer of the plaintiff, first, that it is beyond the pleading and second, it is at the belated stage.

So far with regard to the pleading is concerned, this Court has examined the materials brought on record and the prayer sought for by the plaintiff, whereby adoption deed has been challenged, by which Murlidhar Mahto has been adopted by Jamuni Mahtoin and, as such, the certificate of date of birth and parentage are not beyond pleading. So far the second objection with regard to the advance stage of trial or case is fixed for final hearing is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the issues must be dealt with by the learned trial Court so as to come to a final adjudication of all the lis.

6. Accordingly, even if the case is fixed for final hearing and the judgment has not been pronounced, it is duty of the learned trial Court to consider the same, however, without causing prejudice to the defendants- respondents. The document shall be accepted in the evidence in accordance with law with right to the defendants-respondents to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness and he can also file objection to such document.

7. The plaintiff is directed to adduce the same within four days, as fixed by the learned trial Court.

8. The defendants are further directed to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and if wants to adduce the evidence in contrary to claim of the plaintiff, they are at liberty for two days to give evidence against the same.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions and observations.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Madhav/-