2025:JHHC:19330 -1- C.M.P. No. 769 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- C.M.P. No. 769 of 2024 ---- Rajat Kumar Bose- Deleted and substituted v.o.d.06.05.2025 A. Aparna Bose wife of late Rajat Kumar Bose B. Riya Bose, d/o late Rajat Kumar Bose C. Ajoy Kumar Bose, s/o late Rajat Kumar Bose represented through his mother and natural guardian namely Aparna Bose Resident of House No.165A, New Pipradih Madarsa Road, P.O.and P.S. Chandrapura, District Bokaro, Jharkhand 828403 …… …. … Petitioner(s)/Plaintiff -- Versus -- 1.Prabir Kumar Bose 2.Tapan Kumar Bose Both sons of late Sukumar Bose, both resident of Village Chandrapura, New Pipradih, Madarsa Road, P.O. and P.S. Chandrapura, District Bokaro 3.Munmun Sarkar, wife of late Panchanand Sarkar, daughter of late Sukumar Bose, resident of at C/o Amit Sarkar, Qtr. No.592/D D.S. Railway Colony, Heerapur, P.O. Heerapur, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad 4.Jaya Chabra wife of Sri Piyush Chabra, daughter of late Sukumar Bose, resident of Kachh Gurjar Kshetriya Samaj Trust Shastri Nagar, P.O. and P.S Dhanbad, District Dhanbad …… …. Opposite Party(s)/ Defendant ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Banerjee, Advocate For the Opposite Party(s) : ---- 7/15.07.2025 On 17.01.2025, with a view to provide one more opportunity to the opposite parties, the matter was adjourned and further the matter was adjourned on 06.05.2025 and in spite of that, the opposite parties have chosen not to appear and in view of that, this petition is being heard in absence of the opposite parties. 2. Heard Mr. Aditya Banerjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.07.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-II, Bermo at Tenughat in Original Suit No.54 of 2020 whereby learned court has allowed the petition of the defendant no.1 and accepted the filing of certain documents at the cost of Rs.1000/-. 2025:JHHC:19330 -2- C.M.P. No. 769 of 2024 4. Mr. Banerjee, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no relevancy of the said documents which have been taken on record by the learned court, however, pleading is there in the written statement and other documents have not been annexed and some of the documents have also not been disclosed. He submits in view of that the learned court has wrongly passed the order and taken the same on record. He submits that rejoinder is also filed by the original plaintiff and the learned court has wrongly recorded that rejoinder has not been filed and he submits that the case of the petitioners is prejudiced and in view of that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 5. It transpires from the order that certain documents are taken on record and the learned court considering that to avoid the multiplicity of the litigation has been pleased to allow the said documents. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, however, the mention of that document was there in the plaint, to deny the document to bring on record will amount to take the right of the litigant and it is against the principles of natural justice and the relevancy of the said document can be considered in the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the parties before the learned court. The learned court has exercised its discretion to allow the said petition and there is no illegality, and in view of that, this Court, sitting under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, not inclined to substitute the discretion of the learned court. 6. There is no illegality in the impugned order and this petition is, hereby, dismissed, however, the relevancy of that document will be decided by the learned court on the basis of the evidence led by the parties and further the right of rebuttal of the said document, is kept open with the petitioners. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/,