Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 803 (JHR)

Vishal Linda v. Etwa Oraon

2008-07-23

M.Y.EQBAL

body2008
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 3.5.2005 passed by Sub- Judge IX, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 229 of 1993 whereby he allowed the petition filed by the plaintiff-respondent for exhibiting certified copy of R.S. Khatian and certified copies of the depositions of prosecution witnesses Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of Sessions Trial Case No. 632 of 2000. It appears that plaintiff-respondent filed the aforementioned suit for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit property. 3. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lal, learned Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order and submitted that the question of accepting deposition of the witnesses of the Sessions Case does not arise for the reason that plaintiffs case was remanded back to the Court of C.J.M. with a direction that the case needs further investigation. 4. In the instant case, a counter affidavit has been filed, the affidavit of which has been sworn by respondent No. 1. However, by filing interlocutory application dated 1.10.2007, prayer has been made for ignoring the counter affidavit on the ground that respondent No. 1, Etwa Oraon died much before the affidavit was filed. 5. Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted-that by mistake in the counter affidavit the thumb impression was shown as that of Etwa Oraon. 6. I express my serious displeasure and take it seriously as to how a counter affidavit was filed in the name of a dead person. 7. So far the impugned order is concerned, the Court below has no elementary knowledge that the deposition of witness is not a public document. If a person wants to get the deposition of a witness admitted into evidence then he will have to comply the requirement of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. However, so far certified copy of record of right (Khatian) is concerned, it is a public document and there cannot be any objection in marking the same as exhibit. In the aforesaid premises, this application is allowed in part and the impugned order is set aside so far as it relates to disallowing the deposition to be marked as exhibit. However, so far certified copy of record of right (Khatian) is concerned, it is a public document and there cannot be any objection in marking the same as exhibit. In the aforesaid premises, this application is allowed in part and the impugned order is set aside so far as it relates to disallowing the deposition to be marked as exhibit. It is held that only certified copy of record of right (Khatian) duly prepared under the Act shall be marked exhibit. Petition partly allowed. Application is allowed.