Patna High Court
Sangita Kumari And Anr vs Mridula Sinha on 22 December, 2023
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.697 of 2017
======================================================
1. Sangita Kumari Wife of Vidyabhushan Prasad Resident of Village Kamal
Bigha, Post Bilari, P.S.- Katrisarai, District- Nalanda.
2. Ranjit Kumar Son of late Ramji Prasad Resident of Village- Husena, P.S. -
Sarmera, District- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Mridula Sinha Wife of Madan Prasad Resident of Village- Husena, Post-
Husena, P.S. Sarmera, District- Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-12-2023
Present learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the respondent.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the point
of admission and I intend to dispose of the present petition at the
admission stage itself.
3. The petitioners have challenged the order dated
23.01.2017
passed by learned Sub Judge-6, Biharsharif,
Nalanda in Title Suit No. 249 of 2010, whereby and whereunder
the learned trial court granted permission to the
plaintiff/respondent to bring on record the original Basika of
sale deed dated 10.04.1990 as documentary evidence.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.697 of 2017 dt.22-12-2023
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the plaintiff has already been examined as a witness in the trial
court and the said document was brought on record after six
years though it was available with the plaintiff/respondent from
very beginning. The said document is forged and fabricated and
the learned trial court erred when it granted permission to the
plaintiff to enclose the original Basika of sale deed dated
10.04.1990 after lapse of six years and, that too, when the
deposition of plaintiff has been recorded. Thus, learned counsel
for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is not
sustainable in the eyes of law and the same may be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently
argued that there is no merit in the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioners for the fact that photo copy of the
impugned document was already on record. The original
document was filed in a criminal proceeding. The original
document was filed on 27.02.2013 and thereafter, it was taken
on record vide order dated 23.01.2017. Learned counsel further
submits that it is an important document and the case of the
plaintiff depends upon the said document. Moreover, the
petitioners did not oppose the document being taken on record
and they only asked for cost as is apparent from the impugned
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.697 of 2017 dt.22-12-2023
order. Further the proceeding before the learned trial court has
got hampered due to pending petition before this Court and the
challenge is without any merit.
6. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf
of the parties and after going through the record, it is apparent
that the photo copy of the document has already been brought
on record and the pleadings have also been made regarding the
said document. Hence, bringing the original of the document on
record would hardly cause prejudice to the other side. So far as
delay is concerned defendant has been suitably compensate and
cost has been imposed upon the plaintiff. Therefore, I do not
find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners and hence, the present petition is dismissed.
7. However, learned trial court is directed to ensure
that the defendants/petitioners are not prejudiced in any manner
and are given ample opportunity to controvert/rebut the
document which has now been brought on record.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 26.12.2023
Transmission Date N/A
