Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2062 (JHR)

Khudiram Bhagat v. Prabhakar Lala

2017-11-30

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2017
ORDER : Aggrieved of the order dated 18.7.2008 passed in Title Suit No. 89 of 1990 by which the application dated 27.6.2008 for marking certified copy of documents of Title (Partition) Suit No. 140 of 2004, order sheet of M.P. Case No. 620 of 1989 and the show-cause has been declined, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Title Suit No. 89 of 1990 was instituted by the petitioner for a decree of recovery of possession of schedule 'A' property on declaration of the plaintiff's title over the same. Another prayer in the suit is for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their family members, successors, assignees, etc. from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and changing the nature and character of the suit by raising construction. The defendants contested the suit claiming that the sale deed dated 7.2.1966 is the forged document. They denied exchange of land as pleaded by the plaintiff between H.P. Lala and Satish Prasad Lala. The situation of the plaintiff's house allegedly adjacent to the house of Smt. Puspa Devi was also denied. When the suit was posted for arguments, an application dated 27.6.2008 was filed for marking certified copy of some documents claiming to be public documents. 3. Referring to a decision in "Jaswant Singh vs. Gurdev Singh and Others" reported in (2012) 1 SCC 425 , the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a public document can be admitted in evidence at any stage of the suit. Since certified copies of documents of Title (Partition) Suit No. 140 of 2004 would fall under the category of "public document", the trial court has illegally rejected the application dated 27.6.2008 filed by the plaintiff. 4. Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines public documents as: "(1) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts- (i) of the sovereign authority, (ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country; (2) Public records kept [in any State] of private documents." 5. In "Jaswant Singh vs. Gurdev Singh and Others" case the issue before the Court was, whether a certified copy of the compromise agreement on the basis of which a decree was passed would be a public document or not and whether it should be taken on record of the case. Certified copies of documents of Title (Partition) Suit No. 140 of 2004, in my opinion, would not be covered under the definition of public document under Section 74. In the application dated 27.6.2008, the plaintiff has not pleaded that the certified copies of documents of Title (Partition) Suit No. 140 of 2004 would contain a certified copy of the judgment. The documents which were filed by the parties in the proceeding of Title (Partition) Suit No. 140 of 2004 can obviously not be said to be a public document. Those documents would definitely require formal marking and proof. Another issue involved in this case would be requirement under Rule 14 of Order VII CPC. Under sub-rule (3) to Rule 14 of Order VII CPC with the leave of the Court any document can be produced by the parties, however, such document must be a document with reference, to pleadings of the parties. This position in law is clarified once sub-rules (1) and (2) to Rule 14 of the Order VII CPC is looked into. In Title Suit No. 89 of 1990, there is no reference of M.P. Case No. 620/1989 in the plaint. 6. In the above facts, the trial Judge has rightly declined to admit the documents which were sought to be exhibited vide application dated 27.6.2008. 7. The writ petition stands dismissed.