Nilmoni Khakha vs Bahalen Sanga and Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The instant matter arises out of the order dated 22.08.2013 passed in Title Suit No. 102 of 2006 by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)- I, Jamshedpur where under he has allowed the petition dated 02.07.2013 and 14.06.2013 preferred by substituted defendant of original defendant No. 1 Jano Agnus Aind for adducing certain documents as exhibits.

The present petitioner was allowed to intervene in the said Title Suit vide order dated 03.01.2011, Annexure-C/2 enclosed to the counter affidavit of substituted defendants/respondents herein.

In the plaint, plaintiff/respondent No. 6, who had sought declaration that judgment and decree dated 04.05.2001 and 08.05.2001 passed by Sub-Judge-I, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 95/2000 confirmed in Title Appeal No. 61 of 2003 be declared as illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction had also averred at para-31 of the plaint that the suit land is being sought to be grabbed by fictitious person though such claim made by one Nilmoni Khakha i.e. the present petitioner as daughter of Sino Mashi had failed.

The substituted defendant were also allowed to file their written statement on 22.06.2011 on their substitution on 03.07.2010. Through their petition dated 14.06.2013 and 02.07.2013, the substituted defendants contended that inter se dispute as to the legal heirs of Sino Mashi father of original defendant No. 1, Jano Agnus Aind would be contentious matter required to be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court in the pending suit while arriving at final adjudication on the main dispute raised by the plaintiff. It is submitted that documents enclosed to the instant petitions are those which are the relevant xerox copy of burial extract and burial register showing date of death of Sino Mashi on 03.11.1968. Burial certificate issued by St. Georage Church, Jamshedpur in the name of Agnesh Raven wife of Sino Mashi showing date of death 27.06.1961. Birth certificate of Khirst Nilmani Adlina Shakila children of Anand Mashi showing date of birth 16.05.1962 and baptised on 21.10.1962. Certified copy of khatian vide khata No. 66 in the name of Sino Mashi were also sought to be exhibited. It is submitted that such documents would further aid the learned Trial Court to effectively determine the dispute between substituted defendants and the intervenor defendant/petitioner herein about their claim of inheritance from Sino Mashi father of Defendant No. 1. It is submitted that in the wake of aforesaid factors and the provisions of law under Order 13, learned Trial Court was right in allowing those petitions, which have due relevance to the fact in issue. Petitioner may also have a right to cross examine or adduce any such evidence in her support. Interest of justice would be served if such a course is upheld.

Learned counsel for the petitioner after detailed argument has fairly agreed to the preposition that in the factual maze of the case and inter linked issues involved between the private defendants on the relief sought by the plaintiff for setting aside of the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 95/2001, both the parties i.e. the petitioner herein and substituted defendant may have liberty to adduce evidence on this issue in the pending suit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner had earlier pointed out to the Court that dispute being inter se between the present petitioner and the substituted defendants, respondent No. 6/plaintiff has been arraigned in the category of proforma respondent.

Having taken into account the aforesaid material facts on record and on perusal of the impugned order, this Court is also of the view that the impugned order does not require any interference as it does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or is illegal. Learned Trial Court has considered all aspects of the matter including the relevancy of the document sought to be adduced and thereafter allowed the petition. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that during pendency of the said writ petition before an interim order was passed one of the aforesaid document has already been exhibited.

In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid documents be allowed to be exhibited by the substituted defendant whom the present petitioner and the respondent No. 6 may have opportunity to cross examine. Petitioner, if so advised and is able to satisfy the learned Trial Court about the exigency of adducing any further evidence on the point may also be allowed to adduce the evidence. This exercise, however, be concluded within a reasonable time preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Learned Trial Court would, thereafter, proceed with the suit in accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner.

I.A. No. 707 of 2016 also stands disposed of.