Ranjit Kumar Sah vs Chandan Sah

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. Ashutosh Prasad Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ankit Apurva, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2.

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein to set-aside the order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Jamtara in Original Suit No.27 of 2016, whereby, the petition dated 27.07.2023 filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for admitting and marking the documents in question as exhibits has been rejected by the learned Court. The order dated 11.07.2023 is also under challenge in this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently the petitioner was debarred from leading evidence vide order dated 30.01.2024 and for that, a petition was filed to recall and allow to examine the witness, which has been rejected by the learned Court vide order dated 28.02.2024 and subsequently I.A. No.3371 of 2024 was filed before this Court in the present C.M.P., which was allowed vide order dated 10.02.2025. He submits that in view of that, the order dated 28.02.2024 with regard to recall of the order dated 30.01.2024 is also under challenge in this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Court has erroneously rejected the petition with regard to marking of the documents. He further submits that the documents were already on the record and in view of that, only formal order was required to be passed. According to him, the petitioner has not been able to appear before the learned Court on 30.01.2024 and on that day, he was debarred from leading the evidence and the learned Court has been pleased to proceed further. He also submits that one opportunity to lead the evidence by the petitioner before the learned Court where the suit is pending may kindly be granted to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2 opposed the prayer and submits that the said amendment petition is barred by resjudicata as earlier the same petition was already rejected vide order dated 11. 07.2023. He further submits that the order dated 11.07.2023 was not challenged at earlier point of time and subsequent petition was filed by the petitioner before the learned Court, which was rejected vide order dated 18. 09.2023.

The Court has gone through the materials on record including the order dated 11.07.2023 as well as 18.09.2023. It transpires that earlier petition for the same relief was filed, which has been rejected by the learned Court vide order dated 11.07.2023 and subsequently another petition was filed, which was further rejected by the learned Court vide order dated 18.09.2023 taking into account that the same petition was earlier rejected vide order dated 11.07.2023. Further, the documents which are certified copy, have already been allowed by the learned Court vide order dated 20.05.2023.

It is well-settled that in pending suit any petition is decided, filing of second petition on the same ground is said to be resjudicata. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Soumitra Kumar Sen v. Shyamal Kumar Sen, reported in (2018) 5 SCC 644. In view of that, the Court finds that so far as two orders i.e. 11.07.2023 and 18.09.2023 are concerned, there is no illegality in those two orders and, as such, the prayer with regard to setting-aside the order dated 11.07.2023 and 18.09.2023 is, hereby, rejected.

So far as the prayer which has been allowed by this Court by amendment petition vide order dated 10.02.2025 is concerned, the Court finds force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The CPC is meant for doing the justice and only on the technicalities, a litigant cannot be denied to place his case by way of leading the evidence. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he seeks only one opportunity for examining the witnesses. In view of that, the petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Court on the next fixed date and get him examined and defendants are allowed to cross-examine the witness. All the witnesses are required to be examined on behalf of the plaintiff within two weeks, as submitted by the leaned counsel for the petitioner. It is made clear that no further adjournment for examining the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff will be granted by the learned Court and the suit will be proceeded further.

In  view  of  the  above  facts,  the  orders  dated  30.01.2024  and 28. 02.2024 passed in Original Suit No.27 of 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Jamtara are, hereby, set-aside.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in above terms.