Patna High Court
Sone Lal Tudu vs Leelavati Devi on 21 March, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.725 of 2022
======================================================
1. Sone Lal Tudu, Son of Late Ratu Tudu
2. Jisu Tuddu, Son of Late Manjna Tuddu
3. Pachu Tuddu, Son of Puran Tudu
4. Sibu Tuddu, Son of Manjna Tuddu
5. Rashmi Tuddu, Wife of Late Rakesh Tuddu
6. Shivendra Tuddu @ Shivnandan Tudu, Son of Late Pawan Tuddu
7. Dulari Tuddu, Daughter of Late Ravan Tuddu
All are residents of Village- Badgunda, Post and Police Station- Chakai,
District- Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Leelavati Devi, Wife of Late Reet Lal Yadav @ Reet Lal Mahto
2. Congress Yadav, Son of Late Reet Lal Yadav @ Reet Lal Mahto
3. Bhothua Devi, Daughter of Late Reet Lal Yadav @ Reet Lal Mahto
4. Marni Devi, Daughter of Late Reet Lal Yadav @ Reet Lal Mahto
All are residents of Village- Badgunda, Post and Police Station- Chakai,
District- Jamui.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Akhauri Kamal Kishore Sahay, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-03-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and I intend
to dispose of the instant petition at the stage of admission itself.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
05.11.2019
passed by the learned Additional Munsif-II, Jamui in
Title Suit No. 85 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the learned
trial court rejected the petition dated 05.09.2019 (but wrongly
mentioned the petition dated 01.02.2006) filed by the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.725 of 2022 dt.21-03-2025
plaintiffs/petitioners for getting exhibited certain documents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the defendants/respondents filed on record a number of
documents, but got only some documents exhibited and left
other documents to be marked exhibits. The documents, which
have been left to be marked as exhibits on behalf of the
defendants, are the documents favourable to the case of the
plaintiffs/petitioners and, for this reason, the defendants did not
get those documents marked as exhibits. But the learned trial
court did not consider this fact and passed the order. The learned
counsel further submits that due to inadvertence, in the present
civil miscellaneous petition, the facts could not be properly
presented.
4. Perused the record.
5. From perusal of record, it transpires that the
defendants filed certain documents and the learned trial court
did mark one document as an exhibit considering it to be public
document and did not mark other documents as exhibits. The
plaintiffs/petitioners moved before the learned trial court
praying for marking other documents filed by the defendants as
exhibits. But from the impugned order, it transpires that the
learned trial court considered the facts and rejected the prayer
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.725 of 2022 dt.21-03-2025
observing that only the document of the Collector in Case No.
16/1995-96 was a public document and would be marked as an
exhibit and other documents were private documents and the
case was at the stage of argument.
6. In the light of aforesaid discussion, I do not find
the impugned order suffers from any infirmity as the same has
been passed after due consideration of facts and law and,
therefore, the same is affirmed.
7. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 21.03.2025
Transmission Date NA
