Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Sahara India Commercial ... vs Uday Shankar Paul And Others on 8 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
: Mr. Rrishi Pallava, Advocate
: Mr. Sidharth Sudhanshu, Advocate
: Mr. Ishhan Kashyap, Advocate
For the Resp. 1 to 9 : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate
: Mr. Rakesh Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the Resp. 10 to 15 : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
: Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate
For the Resp. 19 : Mr. Md. Saulat Daud, Advocate
: Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate
---
95/08.07.2025
1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 9/plaintiffs has
provided two charts which were relating to the sale-deeds brought on
record involving 3rd party rights. The list is as follows:
"List of Sale Deed Executed by Duttas (5-10) in favour of
Defendant No. 3 (Karmyogi Grih Nirman Swawlambi Sahkari
Samiti):-
Ext. No. Sale Deed Vendor Purchaser Area
No.
Ext:-a 2367 of Dutta (5-10) Def. No. 3 0.37 dec
With 2005 Co-
Objection operative)
Ext:-a/2 2327 of Dutta (5-10) Def. No. 3 0.37 dec
With 2005 Co-
Objection operative)
Ext:-a/3 2365 of Dutta (5-10) Def. No. 3 0.37 dec
With 2005 Co-
Objection operative)
Ext:-a/6 11505 of Dutta (5-10) Def. No. 3 0.37 dec
With 2005 Co-
Objection operative)
2022:JHHC:43341
Ext:- a/8 3615 of Dutta (5-10) Def. No. 3 0.37 dec
With 2005 Co-
Objection operative)
Ext:-a9 9917 of Dutta (5-10) Def. No. 3 0.37 dec
With 2005 Co-
Objection operative)
Total 2.22 Acres
Sale Deed Executed by 3rd parties in favour of Def. No. 3
(Karmyogi Grih Nirman Swawlambi Sahkari Samiti) which was
purchased from Def. No. (5-10) Duttas:-
Ext. No. Sale Deed Vendor Purchaser Area
No.
Ext:-a/1 8653 of 3rd Parties Def. No. 3 0.37 dec
With 2005 Co-
Objection operative)
Ext:-a/4 8650 of 3rd Parties Def. No. 3 0.37 dec
With 2005 Co-
Objection operative)
Ext:-a/5 2328 of 3rd Parties Def. No. 3 1.65 dec
With 2005 Co-
Objection operative)
Ext:-a/7 2450 of 3rd Parties Def. No. 3 0.37 dec
With 2005 Co-
Objection operative)
Total 2.76 Acres
Gross Total 4.98 Acres
3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 9/plaintiffs has
submitted that the appellant no. 3 can at best claim with regard to
2.22+2.76 = 4.98 acres of land and not beyond.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents representing the plaintiffs
has summarized some of the facts relating to plaint, intervention
petition and written statements in a tabular form which is as follows:-
Date Event
22.05.2006 Title Suit No. 76 of 2006 was filed.
11.12.2006 Written Statement was filed by Defendant No.3- It
contained para-wise reply to plaint. In Para-3, Defendant
No.3 stated that Defendant No.1 and 2 have no concern
whatsoever with the suit property.
No Written statement has been filed by Defendant No. 1
2022:JHHC:43341
and 2.
26.06.2009 Petition u/o 1 Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure was
filed by Duttas for their impleadment which was set out in
altogether 8 paragraphs. They based their claim on the
basis of statements made in Para-(i) to (xiv) after Para-4
(Para-xi and xii have been doubly numbered).
17.07.2009 Intervener petition was allowed, Duttas were impleaded in
Suit as Defendant No. 5 to 10 and they were directed to file
written statement within 15 days.
01.08.2009 Petition was filed by Defendant No. 5 to 10 for adopting
their petition u/o 1 Rule 10(2) CPC as Written Statement.
18.08.2009 Petition u/o 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by Defendant No. 5
to 10 for amendment of written statement with a prayer for
incorporation of Para-9 to 17 after Para-8 of the adopted
written statement.
Defendant No. 5 to 10 filed amendment and amendment
was allowed but they never amended the written
statement denying para-wise and therefore, there is not
specific denial of statements made in the plaint by
5. The learned counsel has thereafter furnished a comparative
chart of statement made in plaint, written statement of Defendant No.3
and Defendant No. 5 to 10 and has submitted that what transpires from
the pleadings exchanged amongst the parties is that it was alleged by
the defendants that M-form which was issued in favour of the
plaintiffs was arising out of connivance and misrepresentation. He
submits that it was not the case of the defendants that M-form was
never issued or it was manufactured.
6. The learned counsel has submitted that M-form having been
issued in favour of the plaintiffs , if there was any allegation of
connivance and misrepresentation, the same could have been subject
matter of appeal before the appropriate authority. The learned counsel
submits that while the M-forms were issued in favour of the plaintiffs
on one hand, petition was filed on behalf of Duttas under Section 5, 6
and 7 of Bihar Land Reforms Act before the Circle Officer which was
registered as Rent Assessment Case No. 1(iii) of 1881-82 and 2(iii) of
1981-82 and in those proceeding without impleading the Pauls as
party, the rent was assessed in their favour.
2022:JHHC:43341
7. This order was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal
which was numbered as 05 of 2004-05 and was re-numbered as 05 of
2008.
8. The learned counsel has also submitted that the order passed by
the Deputy Commissioner in Miscellaneous Case No. 05 of 2004-05
corresponding to Miscellaneous Case No. 05 of 2008 was challenged
in a writ petition by Defendant No. 3 being W.P.(C) No. 2586 of 2009
which was dismissed as not press on 29.03.2023.
9. The learned counsel has submitted that the order of Deputy
Commissioner passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 2004-05
corresponding to Miscellaneous Case No. 05 of 2008 have been also
attained finality.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs while
answering the objection raised by the appellant with regard to marking
of documents at fag end of the trial has submitted that on 24.05.2010
certain documents were filed on behalf of the plaintiff which were
marked as exhibit with objection and those documents were 6, 7 and 8
to 8/9.
11. He submits that the progress in the trial would show that
defendants had full opportunity to controvert the documents which
were marked exhibit while referring to the nature of documents which
were exhibited as Exhibit 6, 7 and 8 to 8/9, the learned counsel
submits that Exhibit-6 was the proceedings of the concerned judge
relating to land acquisition proceeding with respect to land acquired
by BCCL and the purchasers from Duttas were claiming compensation
but such plea was rejected and it was held that it was the plaintiffs
who were entitled to compensation. He submits that in the said
proceeding the M-forms were filed and the judgment was passed
taking into consideration the M-form filed in the said proceedings. He
submits that it was the certified copy of those M-forms which was
filed in the proceeding covered by Exhibit-6 which was also filed in
the present case.
2022:JHHC:43341
12. The learned counsel submits that the claim of the Duttas and
their successor in interest was rejected by making reliance on M-form
which were filed on behalf of the Pauls.
13. Exhibit-7 is the order of Deputy Commissioner in
Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 2004-05 equivalent to Miscellaneous
Case No. 5 of 2008 and Exhibit 8 and 8/1 are the Khewat and 8/2 to
8/9 are the certified copies of the continuous Khatiyan with respect to
the properties involved in this case and these documents were public
documents.
14. The learned counsel submits that the evidence of plaintiffs was
closed on 25.05.2010 and the evidence of the defendant commenced
on and from 15.06.2010. The defendants has also filed certain
documents which were marked exhibit. The evidence of Defendant
No. 3 commenced on 15.06.2010 and closed on 01.10.2011 the
evidence of Defendant No. 05 to 10 closed on 24.02.2011.
15. He submits that on 15.06.2011 Defendant No. 3 had filed
certain documents which was marked as Exhibit and was kept in safe
custody while stating that those documents were public documents.
The learned counsel further submits that on 28.06.2011 the arguments
of the parties commenced and earlier on 23.08.2011 translated copy of
certain documents were also kept.
16. The learned counsel submits that on 12.09.2011 certain
documents were filed by the defendants which was marked with
objection and so far as the plaintiffs are concerned they also filed
exhibit 10 series (Exhibit 10 to 10/2) which were the M-forms, and
the M-form were marked without any objection from the side of the
defendant.
17. Learned counsel submits that on the same date Exhibit-9 series
was also filed which was certified copy of the order sheet of Case No.
565 of 1955-56 which was relating to compensation case and even
these documents was marked without any objection.
18. Learned counsel submits that before the learned trial court the
following M-forms were filed.
2022:JHHC:43341
19. M-form in rent fixation case issued in the name of Latika Bala
Paul being M-Form No. 387 of 62-63.
20. M-form in rent fixation case issued in the name of Satya
Narayan Paul being M-Form No. 389/62-63.
21. M-form in rent fixation case issued in the name of Nirmal
Kumar Pual which is corresponding to 390 of 62-63.
22. M-form in rent fixation case issued in the name of Ambika Bala
Paul being M-Form No. 387 of 62-63. M-form in rent fixation case
issued in the name of Rabindra Kr. Paul being M-Form No. 391 of 62-
63 has been produced before this Court by way of additional evidence
through interlocutory application.
23. Learned counsel has also submitted that one M-form was
wrongly produced before the learned trial court which was relating to
M-form in rent fixation case issued in the name of Haribol Paul being
M-form No. 394 of 62-63 the same has no relevance in this case as
Haribol Paul and his successors in interest are not party in the present
proceeding and their property are not involved in the present
proceeding.
24. Learned counsel submits that there is one document on record
which has been relied upon by all the contesting parties which the
Defendant No. 5 to 10 had produced as Exhibit B and B/3 which is the
order of the Deputy Commissioner relating to Miscellaneous Case No.
05 of 2008 and is equivalent to Exhibit-7 which was produced by the
plaintiff and Exhibit-E which was produced by Defendant No. 3.
25. Post this case tomorrow i.e. on 09th July, 2025 for further
hearing at 02:15 PM
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj/-Rakesh/-
