Patna High Court
Urmila Devi And Anr vs Rina Singh on 15 January, 2024
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1083 of 2017
======================================================
1. Urmila Devi, Wife of Late Jitender Singh, Resident of Village-Pahadi Chak,
P.S.+ P.O.-Sonpur, District-Saran.
2. Rajan Kumar Singh adoptive Son of Late Jitendra Singh, Resident of
Village-Pahadi Chak, P.S+ P.O.-Sonpur, District-Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Rina Singh, D/o Late Singeshwar Singh, R/o Vill Sehan, P.O.Sehan, P.S.-
Mahua, Distt.-Vaishali
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Neeraj Sanidh, Advocate
Mr. Ashwani Raj Narayan, Advocate
Mr. Chitragupta, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 15-01-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners on the point of
admission and I intend to dispose of the petition at the stage of
admission itself.
2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners
against the order dated 18.05.2017, passed by learned Sub-
Judge, Sub-divisional Civil Court, Sonpur (Saran) in Title Suit
No. 472 of 2005, seeking directions for setting aside the said
order.
3. The facts of the case, as it appears from the record are
that the petitioners have filed the Title Suit No. 472 of 2005
against the defendant/respondent, namely, Rina Devi for
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1083 of 2017 dt.15-01-2024
declaration of title over suit property and also for restraining the
defendant/respondent from selling the ancestral property of the
petitioners. In the course of hearing, while evidence of DW7,
namely Arun Kumar Singh, was being recorded, the said
witness made certain statement in his examination-in-chief
which was stated to be completely irrelevant to the facts in the
suit and at the same time it was scandalous and affected the
dignity and chastity of petitioner no.1, a widow lady. The
petitioners made an application before the learned Sub-Judge,
Sub-divisional Civil Court, Sonpur (Saran) for deleting the
scandalous and irrelevant statement, given by the defendant's
witness, in his examination-in-chief. However, the learned
Subordinate Court, while disposing of the application of the
petitioner, passed an order on 18.05.2017 in the said Title Suit
No. 472 of 2005, issuing warning to the petitioners to complete
cross-examination of defendant's witness, namely, Arun Kumar
Singh. The said order is under challenge before this Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that the learned Subordinate Judge has not
considered the provisions of Section 151 of the Indian Evidence
Act which specifically provides that the Court may forbid any
question or inquiry which it regards as indecent or scandalous
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1083 of 2017 dt.15-01-2024
although such question or inquiry may have some bearing on the
question before the Court, unless they relate to the fact in issue.
Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court did
not consider that the dignity of petitioner no.1 was questioned
by the witness which was completely irrelevant in the facts of
the given case. Similar to the effect is Section 152 of the Indian
Evidence Act which casts a duty upon the Court to forbid any
question which appears to it to be intended to insult or annoy or
which though proper in itself appears to the court needlessly
offensive in form. The learned trial court further failed to take
into consideration the principle of relevancy of fact as described
under Section 5 to Section 55 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus,
learned counsel submits that the order of the learned trial court
is in ignorance of law and judicial precedent established by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that any scandalous and irrelevant
question having no relevance to matter in issue ought not to be
allowed.
5. Perused the record.
6. Having regard to the facts of the case and submission
made on behalf of the petitioners, it transpires that the
petitioners filed an application for deleting certain portion of the
deposition from examination-in-chief of defendant's witness
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1083 of 2017 dt.15-01-2024
no.7, namely, Arun Kumar Singh. These portions, as it appears
from the copy of the application dated 18.05.2017 are with
regard to paragraph nos. 7, 8 and 9. The petitioners have
challenged the deletion of these portions on the ground that the
deposition in the aforesaid paragraphs is against the pleading
and nothing has been submitted in the pleadings of the
defendant on the point on which the DW7 has deposed in the
aforesaid paragraphs. But in my view, whatever has been stated
in paragraph nos. 7, 8 and 9, the same is with regard to the
respondent, namely, Rina Devi @ Rina Singh and her status and
the facts related with her action, which has been challenged by
the plaintiffs/petitioners. Paragraph Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the
deposition of DW7 read as under:-
"7. जजीततन्द्र सससिंह 2003 ममें मर गयत । ममृत्ययु कत बबाद
उनकजी औरतशबाद सक्रियबा, बबाह्मण भभोज वभोगगैरह करवबायजी।
मयुखबागनजी भतजीजबा मनभोज सससिंह वल्द महतन्द्र सससिंह नत सदयबा
थबा। ममृत्ययु कत चन्द वरर्ष बबाद रजीनबा नत पसत कत यबाद ममें
जजीततन्द्र सससिंह कबा ममृतर्ती बनवबायजी हगै।
8. यह सक जजीततन्द्र सससिंह कत मरनत कत बबाद सरनबा कयुसिं अर
जजीततन्द्र सससिंह कत जबायज उत्तरबासधिकबारजी हईयु और हगै।
बहतसतयत पत्तजी रजीनबा दतवजी कभो
अपनत पतजी कत सभजी जबायदबाद पर दखल कब्ज़बा चलबा आ
रहबा हगै और जजीततन्द्र सससिंह कत घर ममें रहतजी हगै।
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1083 of 2017 dt.15-01-2024
9. मयुसम्मबात रजीनबा दतवजी नत अपनत पसत कत शबाद सक्रियबा कत
खचर्ष कजर्ष कत चयुकतबा करनत वभो जरूरत कत पपूतर्ती कत
सलयत दभो कठबा दभो धियुर जमजीन एक लबाख अठबारह हजबार
रूपयबा लतकर सन 2005 ममें रसजस्टरजी वगैनबामबा मतरजी पतजी
कत नबाम सत करकत दखल कब्जबा करबा सदयबा हगै तब सत
मतरबादखल कब्जबा चलबा आ रहबा हगै। मतरत अलबावत अन्य
लभोगभो कभो भजी वगैनबामबा परपतशगजी सकयबा हगै।"
7. In their applications, the petitioners have not pointed
out anything about scandalous nature of deposition of DW7 in
his examination-in-chief. So far as relevance of the evidence
recorded on behalf of DW7 is concerned, is to be considered by
the learned trial court while appreciating the evidence vis-a-vis
the issues framed.
8. It is settled law that only the evidence which is relevant
to fact in issue is required to be brought on record by the parties
and irrelevant evidence would not be considered. But that is to
be decided holistically and evidence of any witness cannot be
expunged merely because it is not palatable to the other side or
there might be an issue of relevance raised subsequently with
regard to such evidence. But that issue is to be decided by the
learned trial court after due consideration and not in this manner
or on any application being moved on behalf of the other side
for deleting the certain portion of evidence, that too, without
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1083 of 2017 dt.15-01-2024
giving specific instance of the scandalous nature of the evidence
and also without pointing out irrelevant portion of the pleading
and evidence being against such pleading.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and
discussion made so far, I do think there is any need to interfere
with the impugned order and as such I do not find any merit in
the petition of the petitioners and, hence, the same is dismissed.
10. However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite
the trial and conclude the same at the earliest and at the time of
final disposal, the contention of the petitioners would be taken
into consideration and disposed of with reasoned order.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
balmukund/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 18.01.2024
Transmission Date NA
