Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Sahara India Commercial ... vs Uday Shankar Paul And Others on 22 July, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2022:JHHC:43341
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F. A. No. 43 of 2012
M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. Sahara India and Others
... ... Appellants
Versus
Uday Shankar Paul and Others ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwary, Advocate
For the Resp. 10 to 15 : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
: Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate
For the Resp. 1 to 9 : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate
: Mr. Rakesh Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos. 16 to 18 : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 19 : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate
: Md. Saulat Daud, Advocate
: Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate
---
100/22nd July 2025
1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This interlocutory application has been filed by the plaintiffs
[ respondent Nos. 1 to 9] seeking to adduce additional evidence. The
additional evidence sought to be adduced are-
i. two 'M' forms annexed along with the supplementary affidavit to the
interlocutory application filed on 11.05.2022.
ii. certified copy of the order-sheet passed by the Land Reforms Deputy
Collector dated 08.11.2004.
3. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted that the aforesaid
documents be marked as exhibits; these are derived from the public records
and therefore they are public documents; the documents are undisputed as
it is not in dispute that 'M' forms were duly issued with respect to the
properties and the corresponding case numbers have also been mentioned.
2022:JHHC:43341
4. The reason for filing the supplementary affidavit has been given in
the supplementary affidavit itself by stating that after filing of the
interlocutory application, they could trace out the 'M' forms annexed with
the supplementary affidavit, whose photo copy was filed along with the
interlocutory application.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, in
response, to I.A. No. 4184 of 2022 has submitted that the documents
produced through the aforesaid interlocutory application and the
supplementary affidavit cannot be accepted in evidence as a gospel truth.
The same is still required to be proved as per Sections 61, 62 and 64 of the
Evidence Act as the plaintiffs are claiming these documents to be primary
evidence. He has submitted that these documents are private documents and
they are not certified copy obtained from public office and therefore their
authenticity has to be verified from the public records and consequently
they cannot be simply taken as evidence.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 10 to 15
[defendant no. 5 to 10] Mr. A. K. Das, has also filed a response to I.A. No.
4184 of 2022 and has referred to Annexure-A thereof to submit that the
Circle Officer, Baghmara had written a letter to Land Reforms Deputy
Collector, Dhanbad to say that 'M' form Nos. 387/62-63, 388/62-63,
389/62-63, 390/62-63 and 391/62-63 were not issued from the office of the
Circle Officer. He has submitted that the certified copy of the said document
has been annexed in I.A. No. 3659 of 2025 wherein respondent Nos. 10 to
15 are seeking to adduce the said letter as additional evidence. The learned
counsel has further reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the appellants.
7. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta,
Advocate, in response, has referred to I.A. No. 8962 of 2025 which is
another petition filed by respondent Nos. 10 to 15 seeking to adduce
additional evidence and has submitted that the letter issued by Circle
Officer is of no consequence in view of the fact that the document annexed
2022:JHHC:43341
therewith by the respondent Nos. 10 to 15 itself reflects about the rent
fixation case numbers which have been referred to as not traceable in the
letter of the Circle Officer . He submits that, therefore, it cannot be disputed
that there has been aforesaid rent fixation cases and aforesaid letter of circle
officer has got no relevance.
8. He has further submitted that the appellants herein can at best be
aggrieved by only a portion of the suit property and they cannot challenge
the entire suit property particularly when the Duttas [defendant no. 5 to 10
and respondent no. 15 to 20] have not challenged the judgment and decree.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 10 to 15, Mr. A. K. Das,
while referring to the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 8962 of 2025
has submitted that he has also annexed therewith a comparative chart to
show the mismatch in 'M' form submitted by the plaintiffs and the
corresponding jamabandi which was ultimately opened in the name of the
plaintiffs. He submits that on account of the mismatch, the 'M' forms of the
plaintiffs through additional evidence cannot be accepted as genuine
documents.
10. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted that this is
another interlocutory application seeking to adduce additional evidence to
bring on record the compromise decree, which was passed in Title Suit
No.26 of 2003. He submits that the joint compromise petition which was
filed before the court has also been placed on record through the
interlocutory application. He has submitted that the reason for filing at the
appellate stage is that it is on account of subsequent development which has
taken place during the pendency of instant appeal.
11. The learned counsel while referring to the relevance of the
documents sought to be adduced by additional evidence through this
interlocutory application, has submitted that the compromise petition filed
before the court revels that it stood admitted that the entire 6 Anna land
2022:JHHC:43341
stood auctioned in Ranguni Mouza and Duttas were not left with any
property. It has also been admitted that for the entire property, M-forms
were issued. However, the properties which are involved in the present suit
are not the properties involved in the suit where the compromise had taken
place, but they arise out of the same narration of fact regarding auction,
vesting under Bihar Land Reforms Act, issuance of M-forms and allocation
of Jamabandi number and the fact reveals that the entire 6 Anna of Duttas
[defendant no. 5 to 10] was transferred. He has referred to the joint
compromise petition filed in Title Suit No.26 of 2003.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants, in response, has submitted
that the recitals in the said compromise is not binding on all the plaintiffs
in view of the fact that plaintiff nos.3 and 4 were not party to the said suit
and further the respondent nos.14 and 15 i.e. Narayan Chandra Dutta and
Jivan Chandra Dutta, both sons of late Anil Chandra Dutta, were also not
parties to the said proceedings. The learned counsel has submitted that
merely because it has been mentioned in the joint compromise petition that
the entire 6 Anna was auctioned sold and nothing was left with Duttas, the
same cannot be binding in the present proceedings. The property involved
in the Title Suit No.26 of 2003 was of a very small area only to the extent
of 75 decimals of land.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.10 to 15 while referring
to the schedule to the joint compromise petition has submitted that as per
the joint compromise petition, the entire property consisted and listed under
Schedule 1 ; part of the property had gone to 2nd party to Schedule 2 and
part remained with the 1st party under Schedule 3. He submits that
consequently the entire property was covered under Schedule 1 and nothing
was left for the present case and these properties do not correspond to the
suit property involved in the present case. He submits that this compromise
falsifies the case of the plaintiffs that they had purchased the entire land of
Duttas. He has adopted the other arguments advanced on behalf of the
appellants.
2022:JHHC:43341
14. This interlocutory application seeking to adduce additional evidence
has been filed on behalf of the appellants wherein they submit that in the
execution case arising out of the present title suit, one Narayan Paul had
intervened and had filed M-forms in connection with Rent Fixation Cases
as 387 of 62-63, 388 of 62-63, 389 of 62-63, 390 of 62-63 and 391 of 62-
63, which were different from the M-forms which have been filed by the
plaintiffs in the present case and through the interlocutory application. He
submits that the M-forms submitted by Narayan Paul were totally different
from the M-forms which have been furnished in the present case at the stage
of trial and at the appellate stage and pursuant thereto a criminal case was
instituted, which is pending and during investigation it has come that those
M-forms were never issued by Circle Office.
15. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs has again referred to the
interlocutory application which has been filed by the respondent nos.10 to
15 and submitted that the issuance of M-forms in favour of the plaintiffs
stood admitted in those documents and he has submitted that the F.I.R. in
the I.A. No.3662 of 2025 has been filed by completely unconnected person
and it has been filed by private person, which has got nothing to do with the
present case and the identity of Narayan Paul has also not been disclosed in
the present interlocutory application although Narayan Paul is said to have
filed an intervention petition through an affidavit in the executing court.
16. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.10 to 15 has supported
the learned counsel for the appellants so far as I.A. No.3662 of 2025 is
concerned.
17. With respect to I.A. No. 3659 of 2025, the learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 10 to 15 has submitted that both the set of M-forms have
been found to be forged and fabricated in the investigation of the police and
he is seeking to bring on record the summary of the investigation report
2022:JHHC:43341
prepared by the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad and also the letter of the
Circle Officer, Baghmara issued to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector and
further the copy of the First Information Report in connection with M-forms
and the order regarding institution of FIR.
18. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent plaintiffs
referred to page no. 32 of the interlocutory application to submit that the
state had submitted a detailed response in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2008
pursuant to which the final order was passed and it is not opened to the State
to Riggle out from the submissions which was made in Misc. Case No. 5 of
2008. He has submitted that in this particular petition it was clearly
acknowledged that Jamabandi No. 49 was opened in the name of Ambika
Bala Pal and rent was fixed for Mouza Ranguni, and the various Khata Nos.
have been mentioned thereof and various details with respect to the Rent
Assessment Cases have also been mentioned. Jamabandi No. 51 was
opened in the name of Rabindra Nath Paul; Jamabandi No. 54 was opened
in the name of Nimai Kumar Paul; Jamabandi No. 58 was opened in the
name of Satya Narayan Paul. He submits that the records were verified at
that point of time and the reply was filed which became a basis for order
passed in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2008. He submits that final order passed in
Misc. Case No. 5 of 2008 has been relied upon by all the parties.
19. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 10 to 15 has
submitted that aforesaid Jamabandies were suspended by the Circle Officer
as back as in the year 2000.
20. I.A. No. 8965 of 2025 is an application seeking leave to file
additional evidence as the additional evidence through I.A. was filed after
the argument of this case had commenced.
21. Post this case on 25.07.2025 at 2:15 P.M.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit/Saurav/Mukul
