Jharkhand High Court

Prem Chand Manjhi vs Lakhan Lal Thakur on 16 January, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             C.M.P. No. 798 of 2024
            1.   Prem Chand Manjhi, aged about 46 years, son of Late Sokha Manjhi
            2.   Durga Manjhi, aged about 42 years, son of Late Sokha Manjhi
            3.   Chamu Manjhi, aged about 61 years, son of Late Meghlal Manjhi
            4.   Bijay Murmu, aged about 21 years, son of Late Mono Manjhi
                 All residents of Village Kenduadih, P.O. Jainamore, P.S. Jaridih, District-
                 Bokaro                                           ... Petitioners
                                          -Versus-
            1.   Lakhan Lal Thakur, son of Late Bhanu Prakash Thakur
            2.   Shankar Lal Thakur, son of Late Bhanu Prakash Thakur
                 Both are resident of Village Kenduadih, P.O. Jainamore, P.S. Jaridih,
                 District- Bokaro
            3.   Sriram Addi, son of Late Haru Addi
            4.   Manoj Addi, son of Sriram Addi
                 Both are resident of Village Kenduadih, P.O. Jainamore, P.S. Jaridih,
                 District- Bokaro
            5.   Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District- Bokaro
                                                                  ... Opposite Parties
                                            -----

            CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                            -----
            For the Petitioners      : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate
            For O.P. Nos. 1 & 2      : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, Advocate
            For the State            : Mr. Vineet Prakash, A.C. to S.C.-IV
                                            -----

05/16.01.2025     Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners,

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2

and Mr. Vineet Prakash, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India praying therein to quash the order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the

learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bermo at Tenughat in Original Suit

(TS) No.33/2012, whereby, the applications dated 23.09.2023, 16.02.2024

and 04.06.2024 filed by the defendants/petitioners for call Sherishtedar

report for impounding fees for unregistered Hukumnama and recalling the

order dated 11.01.2024 have been rejected on the ground of delay.

3. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Original

Suit (TS) No.33/2012 was instituted for declaring right and title of the

plaintiffs over the suit land described in Schedule A of the plaint and their

possessions thereon be confirmed. He submits that the defendants have

also filed the documents including one Hukumnama, which was already on

the record, however, it was not impounded and for that applications have

been filed to impound the same and the learned Court has been pleased to

reject the same on the ground of delay. He further submits that for correct

appreciation of the suit, impounding of the said Hukumnama is necessary.

He also submits that one opportunity may kindly be provided to the

petitioners for impounding the said Hukumnama by way of adducing one

Prem Chand Manjhi, who is petitioner no.1. He submits that the petitioner

will not delay the matter further.

4. Mr. Mahtha, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2

vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that after much delay, the said

applications have been filed and the learned Court has rejected the said

applications. He submits that the defendants have not adduced any

evidence. On these grounds, he submits that there is no illegality in the

impugned order and this petition may kindly be dismissed.

5. It is an admitted position that the said Hukumnama is already on the

record and for impounding the same, the said applications have been filed

and the learned Court has been pleased to reject the same on the ground of

delay. It transpires that the petitioners have examined 5 witnesses as D.Ws.

1 to 5 and now application has been filed for producing one witness, who is

petitioner no.1, namely, Prem Chand Manjhi for impounding of the said

Hukumnama. If such a situation is there, the fallout of that will be if the trial

court in the case upholds a particular objection and excludes the material

from being admitted in evidence and then proceeds with the trial and

dispose of the case finally and if at the appellate stage or the revisional

stage, when the same question is recanvassed, it could take a different view

on the admissibility of that material, in such cases the appellate court would

be deprived of the benefit of that evidence. This aspect has been dealt by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v.

State of Gujarat and another, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 1. in

paragraphs 13, 14 and 15, which read as under:

"13. It is an archaic practice that during the evidence- collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. But the fallout of the above practice is this:

Suppose the trial court, in a case, upholds a particular objection and excludes the material from being admitted in evidence and then proceeds with the trial and disposes of the case finally. If the appellate or the revisional court, when the same question is recanvassed, could take a different view on the admissibility of that material in such cases the appellate court would be deprived of the benefit of that evidence, because that was not put on record by the trial court. In such a situation the higher court may have to send the case back to the trial court for recording that evidence and then to dispose of the case afresh. Why should the trial prolong like that unnecessarily on account of practices created by ourselves. Such practices, when realised through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast or remoulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings.

14. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this:Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document

tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from the consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.)

15. The above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. First is that the time in the trial court, during evidence-taking stage, would not be wasted on account of raising such objections and the court can continue to examine the witnesses. The witnesses need not wait for long hours, if not days. Second is that the superior court, when the same objection is recanvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the trial court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial court again for fresh disposal.

We may also point out that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery or expenses."

6. In the case in hand, the said Hukumnama is already on the record

and it was not impounded and if it is allowed to be impounded by way of

permitting the petitioner to adduce petitioner no.1 as one of the witness by

way of payment of impounding fees, the relevance of that can be examined

by the trial court on the basis of evidence to be laid, but to deprive a party

to suit not to file documents even if there is some delay, it will lead to denial

of justice. It is well settled that the rules of procedure are hand made of

justice and, therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial court should

have imposed some cost rather than to decline the production of the

document itself. However in the case in hand, the said document is already

on the record and, as such, the order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the

learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bermo at Tenughat in Original Suit