2025:JHHC:22984 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No.678 of 2024 1. Rakesh Pandey, 2. Mithilesh Pandey, Both sons of Baij Nath Pandey, residents of Village-Tona, P.O. & P.S. Bishrampur, District-Palamau; Petitioner No:1 through his Power of Attorney holder namely Shri Shashi Shekhar Chandra Trivedi @ Shri Shashi Shekhar Tripathi, son of Shri Gorakh Nath Trivedi @ Gorakh Nath Tripathi; Petitioner No:2 through his Power of Attorney holder namely Shri Gorakh Nath Trivedi @ Gorakh Nath Tripathi, son of Late Radheshyam Trivedi; Both the Attorney holders are residents of Chairman Road, Hamidganj, Daltonganj, P.O. & P.S.-Daltonganj, District-Palamau: .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Uday Pal; 2. Vijay Pal; 3. Sanjay Pal; 4. Kuldip Pal; 5. Mandip Pal; 6. Rinku Pal; 7. Chandradeep Pal; All sons of Late Ramnath Pal @ Gareri, residents of Village-Nenua, P.O.-Harinamar, P.S. Chainpur, District-Palamau; 8. Sunita Devi, daughter of Late Ram Nath Pal and wife of Ramesh Pal, resident of Village, P.O. & P.S. -Meral, District-Palamau: 9. Krishna Pal; 10. Mukhlal Pal; Both sons of Baijnath Gareri @ Pal, residents of Village-Nenua, P.O.- Harinamar, P.S.-Chainpur, District-Palamau;; 11. Smt. Shila Devi, wife of Dwarika Pal and daughter of Late Baijnath Pal, resident of Village-Obra, P.O. & P.S.-Garhwa, District- Garhwa; 12. Smt. Saroja Devi, daughter of Late Baijnath Pal, resident of Village- Kundari, P.O.-Kundari, P.S.-Lesliganj, District- Palamau; 13. Smt.Belwanti Devi, wife of Rajesh Pal and daughter of Late Baijnath Pal, resident of Village-Sagauna, P.O.-Konhar Kala, PS. & District- Garhwa; 14. Charitar Gareri 15. Ganesh Gareri: 16. Shivnath Gareri: 17. Sheshnath Gareri: Nos.14 to 17, All sons of Late Ram Jatan Gareri, residents of Village- Nenua, P.O.-Harinamar, P.S.-Chainpur, District- Palamau; 18. Gulami @ Ram Chandra Pal, son of Dasrath Pal, resident of Ramanujganj, P.O.-Khanaria, District-Sarguja; 19. Kamlesh Pal; 20. Umesh Pal; Both sons of Late Nihora Pal; 21. Sakanti Devi; 22. Anti Devi; Both daughters of Late Nihora Pal; Nos. 19 to 22, all residents of Village & P.O. Kundri, P.S.-Lesliganj, District-Palamau; 2025:JHHC:22984 2 23. Sudesh Pal, son of Late Dashrath Pal, resident of Village- Nenua, P.O.- Harinamar, Palamau: P.S.-Chainpur, District- Palamau 24. Fuljhari Devi, wife of Nihora Pal, resident of Village & P.O.-Kundri, P.S.-Lesliganj, District- Palamau: 25. Rajpati Devi, wife of Krishna Pal and resident of Village & P.O.-Kundri, P.S.-Lesliganj, District- Palamau: 26. Dhanpati Devi, wife of Arjun Pal: 27. Fulmatia Devi, wife of Prema Pal; Both residents of Village & P.O. Tildag, P.S. & District- Garhwa; 28. Paltu Pal, son of Late Lakshuman Pal of Village Nenua, P.O. Harinamar, P.s.-Chainpur, District- Palamau; 29. Makhola Devi, wife of Nageshwar Pal of Village Burhibir, P.O.- Burhibir, P.S.-Chainpur, District- Palamau; 30. Parwati Devi, wife of Birawan Pal, resident of Village & P.O.- Nanumati, P.S Bishrampur, District- Palamau; 31. Bifani Kuar, widow of Jatan Pal of Village Nenua, P.S.-Chainpur, District-Palamau; 32. The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau at Daltonganj; .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the State Mrs. Rukmini Kumari, AC to SC (Mines)-II For the O. P(s). : Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate …... 10/ 07.08.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. Petitioners are the plaintiffs and the instant CMP has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.05.2024 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-VII, Palamau in Title Suit No.72 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the petition dated 23.01.2024 filed by the defendant(s)/ Opp. Party(s) has been allowed permitting the documentary evidence to be adduced on behalf of the defendants. 2. Learned trial Court, allowed the documents filed with the list of documents on 07.05.2012 to be adduced into evidence as they were related to the Suit land and Ranka Estate, Palamu as it had been shown in the written statement and also in the plaint. These documents were held to be relevant and therefore allowed the original document to be adduced into evidence. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that particulars of the documents were not mentioned in the petition dated 23.01.2024. There was a delay of about 12 years in filing this petition and further it was beyond the pleadings of the 2025:JHHC:22984 3 Defendant. The document being filed after settlement of issue was not admissible. 4. Having considered the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record, it is evident that plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2007 for declaration of the interest over the suit property. Written statement was filed on 13.12.2007 and the original documents were filed on 07.05 2012 after the framing of issue. Mandate to produce documents under Order VIII Rule 1-A by the defendant, upon which relief is claimed or relied upon is not mandatory in nature and has to be exercised judiciously. It has been held in Sugandhi (dead) v. P. Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 706:- “8. Sub-rule (3), as quoted above, provides a second opportunity to the defendant to produce the documents which ought to have been produced in the court along with the written statement, with the leave of the court. The discretion conferred upon the court to grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no straitjacket formula, this leave can be granted by the court on a good cause being shown by the defendant. 9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under sub-rule (3).” 5. In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court for allowing the documents to be adduced into evidence after framing of issue, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. So far relevancy is concerned the trial Court noted that the document pertains to property which are in dispute in the present Case. Therefore, these documents cannot be shut away during trial. Documents had been filed long back, and could have been adduced into evidence only at the stage of defence evidence. Therefore, it cannot be complained that there was an inordinate delay in filing it before the Trial Court. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the instant civil miscellaneous petition which according stands dismissed with cost. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. Sandeep/- (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)