Dikdarbhogta vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Deputy ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 360 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Dikdarbhogta vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Deputy ... on 21 January, 2026

Author: Rajesh Kumar

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

                                                                    2026:JHHC:1635




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         C.M.P. No. 18 of 2026
     1.DikdarBhogta, aged about 56 years, Son of Late Ramjeet Bhogta
     2.Moti Bhogta, aged about45 years, son of Late Dildar Bhogta
     3.Sohrai Bhogta, aged about 58 years, son of Late Ramjeet Bhogta,
            All are Residents of Siroikela, p.O.- Sewadih, P.O & P.S.- Ranka,
     District- Garhwa                                            ............Petitioner(s)
                                Vrs.
     1.The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, P.O. &
     P.S.- Garhwa, District- Garhwa
     2.Maharaj Singh, Son of Late Manorath Singh
     3.Laljee Singh, Son of Late Abilash Singh
     4.Ramdeya Devi, wife of Sukhi Singh,
            All resident of village- Siraikala, P.O.- Sewadih, P.O. & P.S.- Ranka,
     District- Garhwa                                    .......... Opposite Party(s)
                                .......

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate For the O.P.(s) : Mr. Vineet Prakash, AC to SC-IV

02/21.01.2026 The present C.M.P. has been filed for the following relief:

"Issuance of an appropriate order(s), direction(s) for quashing of order dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure-5 series) passed by Sri Shivnath Tripathi, Ld. District Judge-III, Garhwa in M.C.A. No. 01/2024 Court arising out of Civil Appeal No. 10/2018, whereby and whereunder the Ld. Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C for adducing additional documents at the appellate stage.

And/Or For quashing of order dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure-5 Series) passed by Sri Shivnath Tripathi, Ld. District Judge-III, Garhwa in Civil Appeal No. 10/2018, whereby and whereunder the Ld. Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the plaint in page no. 5 after para-7.

And/Or To stay the further proce edings of Civil Appeal No. 10 of2018 till the final disposal of instant C.M.P.

2026:JHHC:1635

2. In this case there is litigation between the present petitioners and the private opposite parties. The suit has been numbered as Title Suit No. 82 of 2008, which has been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Garhwa vide judgment 23.12.2017 and the decree has been drawn on 17.01.2018.

3. Against the said decree, an appeal has been preferred by the present petitioner being Civil Appeal Case No. 10 of 2018 and during pendency of the said appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. for producing additional evidences has been preferred by the petitioner being M.C.A. No. 01 of 2024, which has been rejected by the District Judge-III, Garhwa vide order dated 08.07.2025, which is impugned in the present CMP.

4. Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. reads as under:

"Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court. -- (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if-

(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or [(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or]

(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.

(2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its

2026:JHHC:1635

admission."

4. Thus, there is only two opening given to the litigants i.e., if there is recusal by the Trial Court or if even after due diligence the evidence was not within the knowledge of the litigants.

5. Both the opening gets negated in the present case as the petitioner was in possession of the said knowledge and there is also no negation by the court below.

6. In view of above legal position, the impugned order has been rightly passed rejecting the application for producing additional evidence.

7. In view of above discussion, I find no reason to entertain the present CMP, which is accordingly dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) 21.01.2026 A. Mohanty Uploaded

____/____/2026