Binod Khatri @ Vinod Khatri vs The State of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned court of Sub Judge-II, Ranchi by the impugned order

dated 23.11.2016 (Annexure-1) has refused to allow the panchayati

settlement dated 7.6.2009 to be adduced as evidence though it

allowed several other documents to be exhibited such as certified

copy of order dated 2.11.2010 passed in Mutation Appeal no.

92R/27/08-09 and 93 R-15/08-09; correction slip of Mutation case no.

3489 R/27/09-2010, 3991 R/27/09-2010 and 3492 R/27/09-2010 as

also rent receipt issued in the name of proforma Respondents.

However, the panchayati settlement dated 7.6.2009 was declined

apparently on the ground that it was not a public document.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said

document may not be a public document but if it is genuine

document and relevant to the issue in controversy, plaintiff should

have been allowed to adduce the same. However on being

specifically put, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly

submitted that plaint or pleadings on record do not refer to any such

panchayati settlement. In that case the document of panchayati

settlement sought to be adduced may not relate directly to the

averments or the case set up by the Plaintiff. However, it is a part of

failed compromise between the parties, which may have relevance to

the issue in controversy i.e. Issue no. 5 i.e. " Whether the three

registered sale deeds no. 13199, 13201 and 13202 dated 7.9.2006

are liable to be cancelled or set aside being fraudulent and without

consideration?"

Status report was called for from the learned Trial Court on the

previous date. The case history up-till now has been submitted in the

form of a chart. From perusal thereof it is evident that evidence of

plaintiff was closed on 6.9.2012 while that of Defendant No.1 was

closed on 19.9.2014. The case has been put up for argument of

Plaintiff, whereafter such leave petition was filed. The panchayati

settlement sought to be adduced is dated 7.6.2009, which is of a

date anterior to the Title Suit No. 340 of 2008. Therefore, there is no

reason why reference to the panchayati settlement should not have

been made in the averments in the plaint at the time of its institution

or any amendment in the plaint should not have been sought for

before the case has proceeded to such an advanced stage of trial.

Though the reason of the learned Trial Court may not be appropriate

but upon consideration of the entire facts on record, this Court does

not find that the Plaintiff/ Petitioner has made out a case for adducing

panchayati settlement as evidence at such stage of trial.

In that view of the matter, interference in the case is declined.

The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.