[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
M/S Sahara India Commercial ... vs Uday Shankar Paul on 28 November, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2022:JHHC:43341
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 43 of 2012
With
I.A. No. 4184 of 2022
With
I.A. No. 3659 of 2025
With
I.A. No. 3662 of 2025
With
I.A. No. 8962 of 2025
With
I.A. No. 8963 of 2025
With
I.A. No. 8965 of 2025
1. M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India,
Sector-2, Kapurthala Complex, P.O. & P.S.- Aliganj, Dist-
Lucknow (U.P.)
2. The Regional Manager, M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corpn.
Ltd. Sector-IV, City Centre, P.O.- Sector- II, P.S. - Sector-IV,
Bokaro, District- Bokaro.
3. M/s. Karmyogi Grih Nirman Swalambi Sahakari Samity Ltd.,
Bhuli, P.O.- Bhuli, P.S. B. Polytechnic, Dist- Dhanbad
.... .... .... Defendants/Appellants
-Versus-
1. Uday Shankar Paul, S/o Late Nirmal Kumar Paul
2. Bani Brata Paul, S/o Late Nirmal Paul
3. Smt. Nanda Laha, W/o Late Sunil Kumar Laha
4. Smt. Krishna Dey, W/o Joytsna Kr. Dey
5. Ratna Das, W/o Shri Rabindra Nath Das
6. Rabindra Nath Paul, S/o Late Murlidhar Paul
7. Shri Binoy Krishna Paul
8. Amiya Kumar Paul
Both sons of Late Satyanarain Paul,
All residents of Purana Bazar, Dhanbad, P.O.- Purana Bazar, P.S.
Bank More, District Dhanbad, at present residing at Khejuritala,
No.2, Mahishila Colony, Asansol, P.O. Asansol, P.S. Asansol,
District Burdwan, No.2 at present residing at Kanchan Nagar,
P.O. + P.S. Kanchan Nagar, District Burdwan
.............. Plaintiffs/Respondents
9. Shri Banibrata Paul, S/o Shri Nirmal Kumar Paul, resident of
Purana Bazar, Dhanbad, P.O. Purana Bazar, Dhanbad, P.S. Bank
More, District Dhanbad, at present residing at Khejuritala, No.2,
Mahishila Colony, Asansol, P.O. Asansol, P.S. Asansol, District
Burdwan
.............. Proforma Defendant/Respondent
10. Dhirendra Nath Dutta
11. Nimai Ch. Dutta
Both sons of Late Surendra Nath Dutta
1
2022:JHHC:43341
12. Krishnendu Shekhar Ch. Dutta
13. Swarup Kumar Dutta
Both sons of Kailash Ch. Dutta
14. Narain Ch. Dutta
15. Jiwan Chandra Dutta
Both sons of Late Anil Ch. Dutta, Village Ranguni, P.O. Bhuli,
P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad
.... .... .... Defendants/Proforma Respondents
16. Smt. Chanchala Kumari, W/o Sri Jai Prakash Roy
17. M/s. A to Z Properties through its proprietor Smt. Chanchala
Kumari
18. Jai Prakash Roy S/o Ujagar Prasad Roy
19. M/s. Bhavesh Commotnade Pvt. Ltd. through its Director, Triloki
Singh, having its registered office at No.3, Salket Place,
Barrackpur, P.S. Barrackpur, Town and District Howrah, West
Bengal
20. Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro cum Regional Director,
Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority (Deleted vide
order dated 07.03.2025)
21. M/s. Asarfi Hospital Limited through one of its Director Udai
Pratap Singh, S/o Nayan Prakash Singh, Khatal Road, Dhaiya,
Damodarpur, P.O. ISM, Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, District
Dhanbad (Deleted vide order dated 07.03.2025)
.... .... .... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwary, Advocate
: Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate
: Mr. Sidharth Sudhanshu, Advocate
: Mr. Ishan Kashyap, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 to 9 : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate
: Mr. Rakesh Kr. Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Surya Prakash, Advocate
: Ms. Swati Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent No.10 to 15 : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
: Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate
For Respondent No.19 : Mr. Md. Saulat Daud, Advocate
: Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate
103/28.11.2025
1. The order was reserved after hearing the parties on 29.07.2025
on the appeal as well as on the interlocutory applications seeking to
adduce additional evidence. Since this court found that some of the
petitions seeking to adduce additional evidence are to be allowed,
therefore, this order is being passed.
2022:JHHC:43341
2. This first appeal has been filed against the Judgment and
Decree dated 15.12.2011 (Decree sealed and signed on 06.01.2012)
passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-I, Dhanbad in Title Suit
No.76 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the title suit has been decreed
on contest declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs
(Respondent Nos. 1 to 9) with respect to the suit property.
3. The appellants were the Defendant Nos.1 to 3, Respondent Nos.
1 to 9 were the plaintiffs, Respondent Nos.10 to 15 were the
Defendant Nos. 5 to 10 impleaded on their petition filed under Order
1 Rule 10(2) of CPC which was allowed vide order dated 17.07.2009
in Title Suit No.76 of 2006 and Respondent Nos.16 to 19 have been
impleaded as respondents in the first appeal by different orders of this
Court.
4. Title Suit No.76 of 2006 on 22.05.2006 was filed by the
plaintiffs represented through their constituted attorney namely, Tarun
Kanti Ghosal, appointed by Registered Power of Attorney No.102/06
of Addl. District Sub-Registry Officer, Asansol in which they had
prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) For decree declaring plaintiffs' and Proforma
Defendant's right, title, interest and possession over the
lands described in the Sch-A below in accordance with
the shares indicated therein with a further declaration
that the defendants have acquired no right, title, interest
therein by virtue of their spurious purchases and have
no right to interfere with the plaintiffs' peaceful
possession thereof;
(aa) For a decree declaring that any transfer / sale deed in
respect of Schedule-A property or any portion thereof
made or executed by the Judgment Debtors of Execution
Case Nos.366 of 1931, 492 of 1935, 144 of 1938, 138 of
1940 and 140 of 1940 i.e. Chandra Mohan Dutta son of
Srihari Dutta, Shambhu Nath Dutta son of Late Surya
Mohan Dutta and Shashi Bala Dasi wife of Late
Shrishtidhar Dutta, or their successors-in-interest is null
& void
(b) For decree confirming the plaintiffs' and Proforma
Defendant's possession over the Sch-B land;
2022:JHHC:43341
(c) For a permanent injunction restraining the Principal
Defendants, their men, agents, contractors, etc. from
going over any portion of the Sch-B lands making any
erection, construction or dumping any material or in
way interfere with the plaintiffs' and Proforma
Defendant's peaceful possession therein;
(d) For all costs of the suit
(e) For any other relief or reliefs to which the Plaintiffs
may be found entitled to.
5. As per Schedule-A and Schedule-B of the plaint, the suit lands
are situated in District- Dhanbad, Chouki, Sub-Registry- Dhanbad,
P.S.- Katras in Mouza- Ranhuni (Mouza No. 226), which consists of
the following occupancy raiyati lands:
SCHEDULE-A
Item No.1: Portions of 'M' Form lands of Case No.390/62-63
(Thoka No.64) of Nirmal Kumar Paul (P-1):
Khewat No. Khata No. Plot No. Area
57 74 630 1.00(P)
614 4.86
699 0.07
700 0.07
701 0.02
702 0.04
57 52 619 0.35
617 0.54
52 66 618 0.47
616 0.35
605 0.11
604 0.65
603 6.50
668 0.18
670 1.54
697 0.25
52 65 585 0.25
667 0.16
615 0.50
49 62 573 0.55
61 572 2.94
54 71 617 0.06
Total Area (22 Plots) 21.46 Acres
Item No.2: Part of 'M' Form lands of Case No.391/62-63
2022:JHHC:43341
(Thoka No.51) of Plaintiff No.2, Rabindra Kumar Paul:
Khewat No. Khata No. Plot No. Area
57 74 630 5.94(P)
628 0.74
627 1.49
52 66 625 1.67
692 0.03
693 0.16
718 0.12
52 626 0.66
624 0.55
65 691 0.42
695 0.10
687 0.23
698 0.25
721 0.20
723 0.14
725 0.36
641 0.42
54 71 640 0.04
651 0.65
67 642 1.18(P)
694 1.11(P)
720 0.10
56 73 724 0.27
81 105 689 0.53
106 690 0.03
Total Area 25 plots 17.39 Acres
Item No.3: Portions of 'M' Form land of Case No.389/62-63
(Thoka No.58) in the name of Staya Narayan Paul, now
belonging to his sons Plaintiff Nos.3 & 4:
Khewat No. Khata No. Plot No. Area
57 74 630 1.00(P)
81 106 623 0.76
52 66 622 0.47
620 0.41
652 1.69
669 0.04
670 1.54
664 0.02
52 621 1.18
65 665 1.44
666 0.08
667 0.16
671 0.73
2022:JHHC:43341
679 0.07
687 0.35
688 0.87
54 67 650 0.05
680 5.33
Total Area 18 Plots 16.09 Acres
Item No.4: Part of 'M' Form lands of Case No.387/62-63
(Thoka No.49) in the name of Ambika Bala Paul (in which
Plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 each have 1/4th Share, Plaintiff Nos.3 & 4
jointly have 1/4th share and 1/4th share belongs to the Proforma
Defendant No.4):-
Khewat No. Khata No. Plot No. Area
57 74 631 1.34
632 0.21
52 66 633 0.28
634 0.12
635 0.03
637 0.34
639 0.08
645 1.97
648 0.03
652 0.34
653 0.02
654 0.03
657 0.25
662 0.11
663 0.01
677 0.18
65 641 0.15
647 0.10
655 0.77
656 0.65
665 0.72
678 0.17
54 67 636 0.02
638 0.26
642 0.29
649 0.15
658 0.76
660 0.02
661 0.01
672 0.27
673 0.02
674 0.01
2022:JHHC:43341
675 0.22
650 0.05
71 640 0.16
646 0.05
651 0.14
659 0.48
676 0.15
643 0.04
644 0.29
Total Area 41 Plots 11.38 Acres
Item No.5: Part of 'M' Form lands of Case No.388/62-63
(Thoka No. 52) of the name of Latika Bala Paul (Dead) now
belonging to Proforma Defendant No.4 Bani Brata Paul:
Khewat No. Khata No. Plot No Area
57 74 630 1.00(P)
52 65 613 0.13
66 608 1.76
612 0.01
611 0.16
610 0.06
609 0.16
607 0.03
606 0.63
684 0.85
686 0.77
67 601 0.07
597 0.09
595 0.15
593 0.14
586 0.13
580 0.56
683 0.24
685 0.25
600 0.04
54 71 602 0.19
599 0.09
598 0.03
596 0.02
594 0.02
589 0.10
584 7.38
583 0.26
582 0.84
581 0.45
578 0.06
2022:JHHC:43341
577 0.63
611 0.01
56 73 681 0.36
682 1.04
57 75 576 0.38
Total Area 36 Plots 19.09 Acres
SCHEDULE-B
Being Portion of the Schedule-A lands, the following plots of
Mouza- Ranguni:
(i) 630 - 1 Acre (D) in the western side being road side
625 - 0.15 (P) in the western side being road side
624 - 0.03 (P) in the western side being road side
644 - 0.48 (P) in the western side being road side
603 - 0.72 (P) in the western side being road side
584 - 0.15 (P) in the western side being road side
6. This first appeal was earlier decided by this Court vide
Judgment dated 30.06.2022 whereby and whereunder the Judgment
and Decree passed by the learned trial court was affirmed with certain
modification and the appeal was dismissed with cost.
7. Thereafter, M/s Asarfi Hospital Limited (Respondent No.21)
and also other parties had moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India vide Civil Appeal Nos. 6781-6782/2023, Civil Appeal Nos.
6778-6780/2023, Civil Appeal Nos. 8242-8244/2023 and Civil
Appeal No. 971/2024 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide common
order dated 26.04.2024 was pleased to dispose of all the appeals in the
following terms:
"Learned counsel appearing for the parties agree that though
three proceedings were disposed of by the impugned judgement,
by setting aside the impugned judgment in so far as the First
Appeal No.43 of 2012 is concerned, the same be remanded to
the High Court for fresh consideration.
Accordingly, we pass the following order:
(i) Impugned judgment dated 30.06.2022 in so far as the
First Appeal No.43 of 2012 is concerned, is hereby set
aside. First Appeal No.43 of 2012 is restored to the file of
the High Court;
2022:JHHC:43341
(ii) The interim applications which were disposed of in view
of the disposal of the said appeal also stand restored.
(iii) The interim relief, if any, operative in First Appeal No.43
of 2012 till the date of impugned judgment also stands
restored with liberty to the parties to make fresh
application(s) for grant of interim relief, if any;
(iv) As the judgment on the First Appeal has been set aside,
the Review Petition will not survive and the order passed
on the Review Petition is also set aside;
(v) All contentions in the restored appeal are kept open and
which can be agitated before the High Court;
(vi) We direct that the restored appeal shall be listed before
the Roster Bench of Jharkhand High Court on
08.07.2024 for fixing a Schedule of hearing. The parties
who are represented today, shall be bound to appear
before the High Court on that date and they will not be
served with a fresh notice of the date fixed;
(vii) A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Registrar
(Judicial) of the Jharkhand High Court who will ensure
that the restored appeal alongwith application(s), if any,
are listed on 08.07.2024.
(viii) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on
the rights and contentions of the parties. The parties are
free to raise it in accordance with law before the High
Court;
(ix) The appeals are disposed of on above terms. No costs."
8. Pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the
interim applications which were disposed of in view of the disposal of
the appeal by this court stood restored which included I.A no. 4184 of
2022 filed by the plaintiffs seeking to adduce additional evidence in
this appeal. There after a number of Interlocutory Applications were
filed by different parties seeking to adduce additional evidence and all
the petitions seeking to adduce additional evidence were heard along
with the main appeal while reserving the judgement. The list of
2022:JHHC:43341
various petitions pending to adduce additional evidence/relating to
additional evidence and placed during the course of hearing of the
appeal are as under: -
I.A. No. 4184 of 2022 read Filed by the plaintiffs (respondent
with supplementary affidavit nos. 1 to 9)
dated 11.05.2022
I.A. No. 3659 of 2025 Filed by the defendant no. 5 to 10
(respondent nos. 10 to 15)
I.A. No. 3662 of 2025 Filed by the appellants (defendant
no. 1 to 3 )
I.A. No. 8962 of 2025 Filed by the defendant no. 5 to 10
(respondent nos. 10 to 15)
I.A. No. 8963 of 2025 Filed by the plaintiffs (respondent
nos. 1 to 9)
I.A. No. 8965 of 2025 Filed by the defendant no. 5 to 10
(respondent nos. 10 to 15) seeking
leave to adduce additional
evidence through I.A. which was
filed after commencement of
argument in this case.
9. This I.A has been filed and also a supplementary affidavit by
the plaintiffs [ respondent Nos. 1 to 9] seeking to adduce additional
evidence as follows: -
Annexure- Two 'M' forms annexed along with the
1 and 1/1 supplementary affidavit to the interlocutory
application filed on 11.05.2022. They are the M form
issued in Rent Fixation Case No. 391/62-63 and
387/62-63 in the name of Ravindra Nath Paul and
Ambika Bala Paul.
Annexure- certified copy of the order-sheet passed by the Land
2022:JHHC:43341
2 Reforms Deputy Collector dated 08.11.2004.
10. 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 involved in this case and the
corresponding case numbers have also been mentioned. certified copy
of the order-sheet passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector dated
08.11.2004 relating to M forms involved in this case be also permitted
to be adduced as additional evidence. The reasons for not filing the
said documents at the stage of trial has been stated in the I.A and in
the supplementary affidavit to the I.A.
11. The M forms are copies provided to the intermediary which are
prepared in 2 sets, one handed over to the intermediary and the other
retained in the office of the authority. M-forms handed over to the
intermediary have been filed in original before this Court which need
not be supplemented by any certified copy as the same is a public
document. He has also submitted that the carbon copies of the M-
forms in original were produced by the defendant no.5 to 10 before
the learned trial court as Exhibit-H series and they are also the carbon
copies and not the certified copies which have been taken into
consideration and have been marked exhibits on the ground that they
are public documents.
12. It has been asserted in the I.A. No. 4184 of 2022 that the entire
suit was conducted by Sri Tarun Kanti Ghoshal who was the Power of
Attorney holder of the plaintiffs -respondent no. 1 to 9/predecessor-in-
interest. Although Tarun Kanti Ghoshal was not an Advocate,
however, his father was a learned Advocate and the Power of
Attorney holder was conducting the case through his father, Sri Sisir
Kumar Ghoshal. After death of Sri Sisir Kumar Ghoshal, the case was
being conducted by Sri Tushar Kanti Ghoshal the elder brother of
Power of Attorney holder. It has been asserted that the required
2022:JHHC:43341
documents were handed over to Power of Attorney holder by the
original plaintiffs for proper conduct of the case. However, during
course of argument in the present case, it transpired that the Power of
Attorney holder Sri Tarun Kanti Ghoshal had only filed 'M' Forms
relating to Nirmal Kumar Paul, Latika Bala Paul and Satya Narayan
Paul. 'M' Form relating to Haribol Paul was also filed though property
of Haribol Paul is not involved in the instant case and 'M' Forms
relating to properties of Ravindra Nath Paul and Ambika Bala Paul
which are also involved in this case were not filed. It has been
asserted that the said two M forms sought to be adduced by way of
additional evidence were issued pursuant to detailed inquiry under
Section 5, 6 and 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act in Rent Fixation
Case No. 391/62-63 and 387/62-63. The plaintiffs upon being called
by arguing counsel, tried to search out 'M' Forms relating to Rent
Fixation Case No. 391/62-63 and 387/62-63 and they were initially
not able to trace out the certified copy or original aforesaid two 'M'
Forms in their record but could trace out photocopy of 'M' Forms
relating to the aforesaid cases i.e. Rent Fixation Case No. 391/62-63
and 387/62-63 and filed photocopies along with I.A. No. 4184 of 2022
and later on could trace the originals which have been placed on
record along with supplementary affidavit. . It has also been asserted
the fact that 'M' Forms relating to Ravindra Nath Paul and Ambika
Bala Paul were issued pursuant to detailed inquiry in Rent Fixation
Case No. 391/62-63 and 387/62-63 is an undisputed fact and even the
Jamabandi register shows that it was opened after the rent assessment
made in the name of Ravindra Nath Paul and Ambika Bala Paul in the
aforesaid two Rent Fixation Cases and issuance of these M-forms
have also been taken note of by the Collector-cum-Deputy
Commissioner, Dhanbad in order dated 10.02.2009/25.08.2009.
13. In the said I.A. No. 4184 of 2022 another document which has
been sought to be adduced as additional evidence is the certified copy
of order/ recommendation dated 8/11/2004 passed by the learned
Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad in Misc. Cancellation of
Jamabandi Case No. 5/2004-05. It has been asserted that the plaintiffs
2022:JHHC:43341
got hold of the said document while searching the M-forms. It has
been further asserted that the aforesaid order/recommendation dated
08.11.2004 passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad is an
important piece of evidence which would enable the court to
adjudicate the present matter. It has also been asserted that in the
order/ recommendation dated 8/11/2004 there is mention of M-forms
which were issued pursuant to inquiry in terms of Section 5, 6 and 7
of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and also issuance of consequent 'M'
Forms. It has been asserted that order dated 8/11/2004 passed by the
learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad in Misc.
Cancellation of Jamabandi Case No. 5/04-05 is an important piece of
evidence as the said case was later on converted into Misc. Case No.
5/2008 and was disposed of by the learned Collector cum Deputy
Commissioner, Dhanbad which have already been exhibited vide
Exhibit-7 and Exhibit-B/3.
14. It was stated that in spite of due diligence the aforesaid
documents i.e. M-forms relating to Rent Fixation Case No. 391/62-63
and 387/62-63 and the order/ recommendation dated 8/11/2004 passed
by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad in Misc.
Cancellation of Jamabandi Case No. 5/2004-05 could not be produced
before the learned Trial Court and the aforesaid documents if taken
into consideration would help this court to adjudicate the issues and to
do complete justice between the parties.
15. The prayer for adducing additional evidence has been opposed
by stating that M forms are forged and fabricate as they were never
issued. It was also asserted that the contents of the documents should
also be proved in terms of Section 61 and 64 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 and without complying the said provision, no document or
its content can be admissible or proved and for the same,
evidence/oral evidence have to be adduced before the learned trial
court with an opportunity to the opponent for objection and asserted
that the documents cannot be marked as exhibits. An objection was
also raised in connection with certified copy of the order of
recommendation dated 08.11.2004 passed by the learned Land
2022:JHHC:43341
Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad in Misc. Cancellation of
Jamabandi Case No. 5/04-05. It was stated that the recommendation
of cancellation is not relevant and also asserted that the said document
was already available at the time of trial but the same was not
produced and it cannot be said that even after exercise of due
diligence such evidence was not within the knowledge of the
plaintiffs. It was also asserted that the said documents cannot be
termed as public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the
Indian Evidence Act and there cannot be any presumption in terms of
Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act.
16. The respondent nos. 10 to 15 have also filed an objection to I.A.
No. 4184 of 2022 stating that the documents sought to be adduced as
additional evidence through I.A. No. 4184 of 2022 is forged and
fabricated and that the documents have not come from proper custody
as mandated by the provisions relating to public documents.
17. It has been asserted that it was upon the plaintiffs to prove the
contents as well as genuineness of the documents which was yet to be
done. The concerned respondents prayed for granting permission to
cross examine the witness for the content and genuineness of the
documents. It has also been asserted that it was an admitted fact that
only 3 remaining M-forms were filed before the learned Trial Court
and therefore the learned Trial Court had based his judgment on the
inconclusive evidence and on this score alone, the judgment delivered
by the learned trial Court dated 15.12.2011 was liable to be set aside.
It was also asserted that the verification of these M-forms was also
necessary for proper adjudication of the case which could fall within
the domain of the trial court. It was also asserted that one FIR was
also instituted. It was also asserted that the Circle Officer, Baghmara
had submitted an enquiry report to the Deputy Collector, Land
Reforms vide letter No. 188 dated 02.02.2024 wherein it was clearly
stated that M-forms bearing serial nos. 387/62-63, 388/62-63, 389/62-
63, 390/62-63 and 391/62-63 were not issued from his office and it
was asserted that this means to show that M-forms on record were
forged and fabricated and the trial court delivered the judgment dated
2022:JHHC:43341
15.12.2011 based on forged and fabricated M-forms. It has also been
stated that opening of Jamabandi itself was under cloud and the
jamabandi was kept in abeyance. The documents annexed were
required to be proved as per Section 76 to 90 of the Indian Evidence
Act and they are not public documents. It has been also questioned
that even before the learned Trial Court in the year 2008, the three M-
forms were produced and straightway marked exhibit and they were
obtained from someone and not from proper custody in 2008 and the
same method was sought to be followed at this appellate stage.
18. The other document which is sought to be introduced by
additional evidence is certified copy of the order-sheet passed by the
Land Reforms Deputy Collector dated 08.11.2004 and it is sought to
be opposed by stating that it is a very old document and has been
declared nonest by virtue of letter of the circle officer Baghmara
dated 02.02.2024 which has been filed in I.A No. 3662 of 2025
seeking to adduce additional evidence by the appellants (defendant no.
1 to 3) to show that the M forms furnished by the plaintiffs at the
stage of trial and at the stage of 1st appeal through I.A. No. 4184 of
2022 are forged and fabricated as the same were never issued .
19. The appellants have filed one I.A. No. 3662 of 2025 seeking
permission to adduce additional evidence of the following documents:
Annexure- Certified copy of the memo No. 795/2024 dated
1 & 1/1 17.02.2024 and Memo No. 188 dated 02.02.2024
20. With respect to the aforesaid documents pertaining to report of
Circle Officer, Baghmara under Memo No. 188 dated 02.02.2024
along with memo No. 795/2024 dated 17.02.2024 of Sub Inspector of
Police, Baghmara Police Station it is stated that it has been alleged to
have been reported that M-Form No. 387/62-63, 388/62-63, 389/62-
63, 390/62-63 and 391/62-63 were not issued from their office.
21. It has been asserted that the five M-forms are the fulcrum of the
case on the basis of which declaration has been sought with respect to
2022:JHHC:43341
the plot contained in Schedule A and Schedule B of the Plaint in
connection with which allegation of forgery has been made and
criminal case is pending.
22. A reply to I.A. No. 3662 of 2025 was filed by the plaintiffs in
which it is stated that I.A. No. 3662 of 2025 is not maintainable. It has
been asserted that the Memo No. 188 dated 02.02.2024 along with
memo No. 795/2024 dated 17.02.2024 of Sub Inspector of Police,
Baghmara Police Station are only reports submitted to the police
officer and the circle officer and the matter is yet to take final
conclusion. It has been asserted that the prayer of the appellants with
reference to the memo no. 795/2025 dated 17.02.2024 and memo no.
188 dated 02.02.2024 to be taken as additional evidence is an
afterthought and fundamentally misconceived. The allegations made
therein are not only baseless but also contradicts the pleadings of the
parties. It was stated that one criminal case is said to be pending and
bald allegations of forgery and fabrication of M-forms have been
made in this case without any foundational pleadings. In spite of the
fact that the issuance of M-forms was intricately linked with the
assessment and payment of compensation for the lands vested in the
State vide compensation case no. 565 of 1955-56 and case no. 391 of
1955-56, the respondent nos. 1 to 9 had purchased 6 annas out of 16
annas of Mouza Ranguni through different execution case no.
492/1935, 144/1938, 138/1940, 366/1931 and 140 of 1940 after being
declared a decree holder in Mortgage Suit No. 61 of 1938 and
33/1930 and Title Suit No. 81 of 1941. The report referred to in the
letter no. 188 dated 02/02/2024 of the Circle Officer, Baghmara is
contradictory to the order dated 08.11.2004 passed by the Land
Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad in Misc. Jamabandi Cancellation
Case No. 5 of 2004-05 as also subsequent order passed in Misc. Case
No. 5 of 2008 by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. Before
passing the said order dated 08.11.2004 the Land reforms Deputy
Collector, Dhanbad had called for a report from Circle Officer,
Baghmara which was submitted by letter no. 351 dated 06.05.2004 by
the then Circle Officer, Baghmara along with a report submitted by
2022:JHHC:43341
the Revenue Karamchari and the Circle Officer. The matter relating to
issuance of M-form and entry in the name of the plaintiffs and their
predecessor in interest was thoroughly enquired into by the revenue
authority in the previous proceedings and ultimately vide order dated
08.11.2004 and 10.02.2009 as well as order dated 25.08.2009, the
land reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad as well as the Deputy
Commissioner, Dhanbad confirmed the fact that M-forms bearing
serial nos. 387/62-63, 388/62-63, 389/62-63, 390/62-63 and 391/62-
63 and 392/62-63 and 394/62-63 were issued in the name of
predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs and based on such M-form
Jamabandi was opened and rent was collected from the plaintiffs.
It was asserted that denial of issuance of M-forms and institution of
criminal case has no bearing in the matter. The issuance of M-form in
favour of the plaintiffs was never in dispute.
23. The respondent no. 10 to 15 have also filed I.A seeking to
adduce the following documents as additional evidence: -
Annexure-IA-1 Photocopy of the certified copy of the
Annexure-IA-2 Certified copy of the enquiry report letter
no. 188 dated 02.02.2024
Annexure-IA-3 Certified copy of review report of D.S.P.
(Law and order) Dhanbad, Dhanbad
bearing letter no. 7757 dated 06.12.2024.
Annexure-IA-4 and 4/1 Photocopy of the order dated 29.11.2019
passed in F.A. No. 43 of 2012 as well as
photocopy of AGP Report in Misc. Case
No. 05 of 2008.
24. The aforesaid I.A no. 3659 of 2025 is on similar lines as that of
I.A no. 3662 of 2025 primarily alleging that the M forms exhibited by
the plaintiffs in the trial and the M forms sought to be adduced in
additional evidence by the plaintiff are forged as the same were never
issued by the office of the concerned authority and a criminal case is
2022:JHHC:43341
pending. [M-Form No. 387/62-63, 388/62-63, 389/62-63, 390/62-63
and 391/62-63]
25. Separate Reply to I.A no. 3662 of 2025 and I.A no. 3659 of
2025 objecting to these I.A.s have been filed by the plaintiffs on
similar lines stating that they are not maintainable; the issuance of M-
Form No. 387/62-63, 388/62-63, 389/62-63, 390/62-63 and 391/62-63
were never in dispute and issuance of these M forms is apparent from
the order passed by the authorities referring to these M forms and it
cannot be said that they were never issued.
26. This I.A has been filed by the respondent no. 10 to 15 stating
that it is the case of the plaintiffs that based on the M forms exhibited
and M forms sought to be brought on record through additional
evidence correspondent Jamabandi nos. 49,51,52,54 and 58 were
issued in the name of the plaintiffs. Through the I.A. No. 8962 of
2025 the defendants are seeking to bring on record the certified copies
of the Jamabandi nos. 49,51,52,54 and 58. It has been asserted that
upon comparison of the Jamabindis with M forms, there are serious
and fatal mismatches for which a comparative chart has also been
prepared and annexed with the intelicutory application as annexure I-
A-2 series. Though no counter affidavit has been filed but during the
course of arguments the parties have extensively referred to the M
forms and the Jamabandi nos. 49,51,52,54 and 58 trying to show
mismatch/ trying to reconcile the two.
27. This I.A. has been filed by the plaintiffs (respondent no. 1 to 9)
seeking leave to produce order dated 31.03.2016 passed in
compromise decree dated 31.03.2016 in Title Suit No. 26 of 2003
being a subsequent development during the pendency of this case. It
was a suit filed by the plaintiffs of this case against the defendant no.
5 to 10 of the present case which ended in a compromise and the
defendant no. 5 to 10 of the present case were added as party in the
present suit upon intervention. It has been asserted that even
defendant no.3 has made reference of Title Suit no. 26 of 2003 and led
2022:JHHC:43341
evidence and exhibited the documents of the said suit as exhibit- C
series in the present suit. It has been asserted that the compromise in
the Title Suit no. 26 of 2003 has a bearing in this case and the same be
taken on record by way of additional evidence.
28. No reply in opposition to this I.A has been filed and not much
arguments have been advanced to oppose the prayer.
Considering the fact that the aforesaid compromise decree is on
account of subsequent development and the material in connection
with the Title Suit no. 26 of 2003 have been exhibited in the trial of
the present suit also I.A. No. 8963 of 2025 is allowed.
29. I.A. No. 8965 of 2025 has been filed by the respondent no. 10
to 15 seeking leave to adduce additional evidence which has been
filed after commencement of the arguments of this case. Considering
the facts and circumstances involved in this case, I.A. No. 8965 of
2025 is closed as all the I.As seeking to lead additional evidence
involved in this case are being considered and disposed of by this
order.
Findings on I.A. No. 4184 of 2022 and I.A. No. 3662 of 2025 I.A.
No. 3659 of 2025 and I.A. No. 8962 of 2025
30. Before considering the plea for admitting the-
(i) Original M Form issued in Rent Fixation Case No.391/62-63
and 387/62-63 in the name of Ravindra Nath Paul and Ambika
Bala Paul through I.A no. 4184 of 2022 filed by the plaintiffs.
(ii) Certified copy of order dated 8.11.2004 passed in Misc.
Cancellation of Jamabandi case no.5/2004-05 through I.A no.
4184 of 2022 filed by the plaintiffs.
(iii) certified copies of the Jamabandi nos. 49,51,52,54 and 58
Through the I.A. No. 8962 of 2025 to demonstrate mismatch
upon comparison of the Jamabindis with M forms of the
plaintiffs already filed at the stage of trial and two sought to be
introduced through I.A. No. 8962 of 2025 filed by the
defendants.
the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC are required to be
2022:JHHC:43341
considered.
31. ORDER 41 Rule 27 of CPC deals with Production of
additional evidence at Appellate Court and as per the provision a party
in appeal is entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or
documentary, in the following circumstances:
1. The Court from whom the appeal is preferred has
improperly refused to admit evidence.
2. The party seeking to adduce additional evidence
establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due
diligence, the evidence was not within his knowledge or
it could not be produced by him at the time when the
decree appealed against was passed.
3. The appellate court requires any document to be
produced or witness to be examined to enable it to
pronounce Judgment, or for any other substantial cause.
Further, wherever additional evidence is allowed the court shall record
reason for its admission. It is also well settled that an opportunity of
rebuttal is require to be provided to the other side.
32. It is apparent that when other M forms had been filed, omission
to bring on record these documents at the stage of trial appears to be
on account of oversight on the part of the conducting counsel or the
power of attorney holder. Further, Certified copy of order dated
8.11.2004 passed in Misc. Cancellation of Jamabandi case no.5/2004-
05 and also the certified copies of the Jamabandi nos. 49,51,52,54 and
58 are closely linked to M forms and the defendants have tried to state
that there are mismatches between M forms of the plaintiffs and the
certified copies of the Jamabandi nos. 49,51,52,54 and 58. However,
issuance of M forms is not in dispute.
33. It has been held in Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs State of
Jharkhand; 2022 SCC On Line SC 292 by Hon'ble Apex Court
"7. It is true that the general principle is that the appellate court
should not travel outside the record of the lower court and
cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception,
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take
additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. It may also be
true that the appellate court may permit additional evidence if
2022:JHHC:43341
the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist and the
parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such
evidence. However, at the same time, where the additional
evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over
the case and the evidence has a direct and important bearing on
the main issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it
imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on record,
such application may be allowed. Even, one of the
circumstances in which the production of additional evidence
under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by the appellate court is to be
considered is, whether or not the appellate court requires the
additional evidence so as to enable it to pronouncement
judgment or for any other substantial cause of like nature. As
observed and held by this Court in the case of A. Andisamy
Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar, reported in (2015) 17 SCC
713, the admissibility of additional evidence does not depend
upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether
the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at
an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the
appellate court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to
enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial
cause. It is further observed that the true test, therefore is,
whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on
the materials before it without taking into consideration the
additional evidence sought to be adduced".
34. The matter for consideration is whether these documents are
required by this court to enable it to pronounce judgment or it is
required for any other substantial cause?
35. It may be noted that issuance of M Forms in the name of Smt
Ambika Bala Pal and Rabindra Kumar Pal in Rent Fixation Case No.
387/62-63 and 391/62-63 respectively has been specifically pleaded in
the plaint. There has not been any denial in the written statement
regarding the issuance of these M forms but it has been contended that
it was issued in collusion with revenue authorities. These M-forms are
important piece of evidence to ascertain that after vesting of the
intermediary interest on coming into force of the Bihar Land Reform
Act 1950 who were parties accepted by the State as tenant with
respect to the Suit land or they got vested in the State and for that
purpose certified copies of the Jamabandi nos. 49,51,52,54 and 58 are
also relevant . Equally important are the connected proceedings of
Misc. Cancellation of Jamabandi case no.5/2004-05 in which order
dated 08.11.2004 was passed There is a substantial cause for
admitting these documents into evidence and if these documents are
2022:JHHC:43341
not admitted on technical grounds, it will result in miscarriage of
justice. This court is also of the considered view that these documents
are required by this court to enable it to pronounce judgment with
clarity dealing with claim of the respective parties.
36. I.A. No. 4184 of 2022 and I.A. No. 8962 of 2025 are allowed
in the following terms.
37. Since arguments have been advanced with regards to
genuineness and authenticity of the additional evidence the file is sent
back to the learned court to take additional evidence on the aforesaid
documents and after completion of recording of additional evidence to
send it back to this court. An opportunity of rebuttal is to be given to
the other side by the learned court. While taking the additional
evidence the learned court shall consider the genuineness and
authenticity of the additional evidence including as to whether the
contents thereof have been proved by the party relying thereon, and
thereafter to return the evidence to this court together with its findings
thereon with reasons. The learned trial court shall afford an
opportunity to the other parties to adduce evidence in rebuttal but
confined to the aspects covered by the aforesaid additional evidences.
38. Further, even with regards to the additional evidence through
I.A. No. 8963 of 2025 dealing with compromise in Title suit no. 26 of
2003 which has been allowed, aforesaid same procedure is to be
followed.
39. So far as I.A no. 3659 of 2025, I.A no. 3662 of 2025 are
concerned no ground has been made out to allow the additional
evidence as nothing concrete has been crystalised with respect to the
allegations made therein. I.A no. 3659 of 2025, I.A no. 3662 of 2025
are rejected.
40. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on
15.01.2026 at 11 A.M and to co-operate with the proceedings.
41. After completion of recording of additional evidence in the
aforesaid manner, the learned trial court shall return the evidence
together with its findings thereon and the records of the case in
original to this Court by 06.04.2026.
2022:JHHC:43341
42. Post this case on 16.04.2026.
43. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through
FAX/e-mail.
44. Let the original case records along with the aforesaid
interlocutory application being I.A NO. 4184 OF 2022, I.A NO. 8962
OF 2025, and I.A NO. 8963 of 2025 along with their counter
affidavits, supplementary affidavit, rejoinders be sent in original to the
concerned trial court through Special Messenger.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
Uploaded on 28/11/2025
