Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 115 (JHR)

Sedmal Modi v. Shiv Shankar Prasad Yadav

2007-02-23

M.Y.EQBAL

body2007
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the plaintiff has prayed for quashing the order dated 16.11.2006 passed by Sub-Judge, I Dumka in Title Suit No. 23/96 by which he has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for grant of leave for tendering some relevant documents into evidence and for recalling PW 1 for his re- examination in order to prove the documents. 2. The aforesaid petition was opposed by the defendants on the ground that the documents sought to be tendered into evidence are forged and anti-dated documents and the same could not be filed within the reasonable time although it was within the knowledge of the plaintiff-petitioner. 3. The Court below rejected the prayer of the petition on the ground that 30.1.1997 was the date fixed for filing of the documents and the list of witnesses but the documents were not filed by the date fixed and, thereafter the witnesses were examined. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the plaintiff-petitioner filed zeroxed copies of all the documents on 24.6.1997. In the petition filed by the petitioner for tendering those documents into evidence, it has been categorically stated that those documents were lying in other Court and so they could not be produced at the time of examination-in-chief of the plaintiffs witnesses. It has been further stated that some of the documents are thirty years old, zeroxed copies of which were produced from the custody of the plaintiff-petitioner. 5. As noticed above, admittedly the documents sought to be tendered into evidence are thirty years old and were filed as far back as in the year 1997. It further appears that the defendants have not yet examined their witnesses. In such circumstance, no prejudice shall be caused to the defendants if the originals of those documents are admitted into evidence. 6. In the aforesaid premises I am of the view that the Court below ought to have allowed the petition filed by the plaintiff-petitioner and granted him leave to tender those documents into evidence for proper adjudication of the matter in issue. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently the petition filed by the plaintiff-petitioner stands allowed.