Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 33 (JHR)

Mulla Ansari v. Sk. Sattar

2005-01-13

N.N.TIWARI

body2005
ORDER Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. In this application the petitioner- plaintiff has prayed for quashing the order dated 22.7.2004 passed by learned Munsif, Lohardaga in Title Suit No. 28 of 2001, whereby the Court below has refused to allow the petitioner to bring in evidence the sketch map prepared by Amin for specific identification of the encroached area of the suit land. 2. Notice was issued in this case. Respondent No. 1 his appeared, but no counter affidavit has been filed. At the time of hearing also, no body appeared on behalf of the respondents to object the petition. 3. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the sketch map, which was prepared by Panchu Ram, Amin, was sought to be brought as an evidence for proper identification of the encroached area of the suit land. The said prayer was made in course of examination Of witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit is still at the evidence stage. 4. The learned Court below has refused to accept the said sketch map in evidence on the ground that there is only summary reference of the measurement in the plaint in paragraph 9, but there is no specific statement as to whether sketch map was prepared thereafter or not. Further ground is that despite sufficient opportunity, the plaintiff did not file the said sketch map earlier. Suddenly, the same is sought to be filed at this stage. 5. From the impugned order it is evident that there was reference of the said sketch map in the beginning and the defendants were in the know of the existence of such map. The said sketch map is not a surprise for the defendants. The map, according to the petitioner, has been prepared only in order to show the encroached area specifically. In that view, the said sketch map will be a helpful document to ascertain the encroached area specifically and to adjudicate upon the controversies between the parties. Some delay in bringing the same on record without any complain or prejudice to the other side is immaterial. The said aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Court below and the impugned order has been passed without due application of mind. The impugned order is, thus, not sound and proper. Some delay in bringing the same on record without any complain or prejudice to the other side is immaterial. The said aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Court below and the impugned order has been passed without due application of mind. The impugned order is, thus, not sound and proper. If the case is still at the evidence stage, there is no impediment in accepting the said sketch map as a piece of evidence on behalf of the petitioner. 6. In the light of the above, the impugned order dated 22.7.2004 is quashed. This application is allowed.