Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 238 (JHR)

Nabi Rasool v. Shishir Kumar Das

2011-03-24

D.N.PATEL

body2011
`Order Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts. and circumstances of the case, it appears that the present petitioners (original plaintiffs) have instituted Title (Eviction) Suit No. 29 of 2002, which is pending before the Munsif-I, Dhanbad. The petitioners (original plaintiffs) want to examine an officer of Dhanbad Municipality, so that the document, which has been presented by the original plaintiffs with respect to the assessment order of the property, in question, can be given exhibit number. This document affects the very root of the case. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that no prejudice is going to cause to the original defendant. The document, which is presented by the original plaintiffs is the assessment order of the property, in question, passed by the Dhanbad Municipality for imposing and levying property tax. 2. It is submitted by both the counsel that this document was declared not to be a public document and, therefore, it is now very much necessary for the original plaintiffs to adduce evidence of any officer of Dhanbad Municipality so that the document may be given exhibit number and may be taken into consideration at the time of final hearing of the suit. 3. Looking to the impugned order passed by the Munsif-I, Dhanbad dated 18th November, 2010, it appears that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated. The document which is presented by the original plaintiffs has a direct nexus with the dispute between the parties. 4. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is very much necessary for the original plaintiffs to adduce evidence of any officer from Dhanbad Municipality so as to have .an exhibit number upon the said document, which is assessment order passed by the Dhanbad Municipality for the property, in question. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash the order passed by the Munsif-I, Dhanbad dated 18th November, 2010 in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 29 of 2002. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that they shall not ask for any unnecessary adjournment. Only one witness has to be examined and, therefore, on the very first opportunity before the trial court, this witness will be examined by them. 7. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that they shall not ask for any unnecessary adjournment. Only one witness has to be examined and, therefore, on the very first opportunity before the trial court, this witness will be examined by them. 7. In view of the aforesaid submission, I hereby direct the trial court to allow the original plaintiffs to adduce evidence at the earliest, of an officer/employee of the Dhanbad Municipality in respect to the document, which is presented by the plaintiffs for assessment of the property, in question. 8. This petition is, hereby allowed and disposed of with a cost of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only), to be deposited before the trial court within a period of two weeks from today and upon proper application filed by the defendant, the said amount will be allowed to be withdrawn.