Jharkhand High Court
Dharmendra Kumar And Others vs The State Of Jharkhand Through D.C on 11 November, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 510 of 2016
Dharmendra Kumar and others ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through D.C., Chatra and others
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate
: Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate
For the Resp. 11 : Khushboo Kataruka, Advocate
: Mr. Shubham Kataruka, Advocate
: Ms Kumari Ruchika, Advocate
For the Resp. 7&9 : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Senior Advocate
: Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Aman Kedia, Advocate
For the Resp. 8 and 10 : Mr. Abdul Wahab, Advocate
---
14/11.11.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 7
to 11.
2. So far as respondent no. 5 is concerned, he has refused to accept
notice and the notice has been validly served upon respondent no. 6 as
per order dated 17.09.2025.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that two
documents were filed apart from others before the learned trial court;
one was the fard Amin report and the other was two jamindari rent
receipts. He submits that in the plaint it has been clearly mentioned
that Jagatpal Vaidya approached the ex-landlord for settlement of land
who got the same measured through amin and granted parcha and
then settled the land and Jagatpal Vaidya regularly paid rent to the ex-
landlord and obtained jamindari rent receipts. He submits that this
averment in the plaint was also supported by the evidence on record
but by mistake the said documents which was filed in the suit were not
marked as exhibit.
4. Accordingly, a petition under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was filed
before the learned 1st appellate court for marking of the said document
as exhibit.
5. He submits that on the day the 1st appellate court's judgment
was passed, on the very same day, the plea of additional evidence was
rejected. He submits that this aspect of the matter has been brought on
record by filing a supplementary affidavit before this court.
6. The learned counsel has submitted that the documents which
were already placed on record before the learned trial court have
serious bearing in the matter as the plaintiffs are claiming on the basis
of sada hukumnama and fard amin report and the jamindari rent
receipt has a bearing with regard to the possession of the plaintiffs. He
submits that the documents sought to be marked as exhibit was not by
way of an afterthought, rather it was only by error that the documents
were not marked before the learned trial court. He has submitted that
the substantial question of law no. (A) calls for consideration by this
court and if this court ultimately finds that the documents were
required to be taken into consideration by way of additional evidence
by the learned 1st appellate court then the matter has to be remanded to
the learned 1st appellate court for needful.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
have pointed out that the petition seeking additional evidence was
filed only in the year 2016. He has also submitted that the records of
the case is required to be called for to find out as to whether the
plaintiffs had actually placed those documents on record or not and if
placed, when they were placed on record. The learned counsel has also
submitted that otherwise also, the said documents cannot be simply
marked as exhibit. It has to be proved by oral evidence and the
defendant would have right of rebuttal.
8. This appeal is admitted for final hearing on the aforesaid
substantial question of law no. (A) as suggested by the learned counsel
for the appellants: -
" A. Whether finding recorded by the learned appellate
court that Hukumnama dated 1998 Samvat by virtue of
which plaintiffs claim right, title, interest and possession
over the suit land is false and bogus is perverse as it
completely failed to notice Fard Amin Report and
Jamindari Receipts which are available on record but
could not be marked as exhibit before the trial court and
application for exhibiting the said document were filed
before the learned appellate court under Order XLI Rule
27 read with section 151 C.P.C. which however was
rejected. "
9. The learned counsel for the appellants is directed to serve two
copies of the memo of appeal along with all its enclosures and other
affidavits which have been placed on record in the office of learned
Advocate General to ensure representation of the State on the next
date.
10. The respondent nos. 7 to 11 have already entered their
appearance, hence no need to issue notice to them. The respondent no.
5 has refused to accept notice and respondent no. 6 was duly served,
but nobody has entered appearance.
11. Let the records be called for from the concerned courts. The
learned Trial court is directed to send the original record to this court
and while sending the record should specifically mention as to
whether the fard amin report and the two jamindari rent receipts were
placed on record by the plaintiffs before the learned trial court and
if,yes, when was it placed on record.
12. The records be called for upon deposit of special messenger
cost by the appellants within a period of ten days from today.
13. Post this case on 15.12.2025.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
