-1- C.M.P. No. 208 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- C.M.P. No. 208 of 2025 ---- 1) FULCHAND RAM AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS SON OF LATE BARHAN BHUIYA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PASAI, P.O.-REWALI, PS KATKAMSANDI, DISTRICT HAZARIBAGH 2) JAINATH RAM AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS SON OF FULCHAND RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PASAI, P.O.-REWALI, PS KATKAMSANDI, DISTRICT HAZARIBAGH 3) RAJESH RAM AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS SON OF FULCHAND RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PASAI, P.O.-REWALI, PS KATKAMSANDI, DISTRICT HAZARIBAGH 4) SUNIL RAM AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS SON OF FULCHAND RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PASAI, P.O.-REWALI, PS KATKAMSANDI, DISTRICT HAZARIBAGH ….. …… …. Plaintiffs/ Petitioners -- Versus -- 1) SOBHI RAM 2) CHHOTI RAM 3) KAILASH RAM 4) KHEMLAL RAM 5) SHYAM LAL RAM 6) MD. MINHAJ 7) BADRUDDIN 8) MD. SERAJ 9) JAIBUN NISHA 10) SOGRA KHATOON 11) RAJESH GUPTA ALIAS RAJESH SAO 12) CHANDAN SAO ALIAS CHANDAN GUPTA 13) GAYATRI DEVI 14) SUMITRA DEVI 15) ARJUN SAW 16) ARUN SAW 17) AJAY SAW 18) ANUJ SAW 19) BIBI HALIMAN NISA 20) MOHAN GOPE 21) PARMESHWAR GOPE 22) CHHAKAN GOPE 23) MUKESH RANA 24) RAKESH RANA 25) KUSHUM DEVI 26) ARJUN RANA 27) MANORMA DEVI 28) LALA RANA 29) SMT. YASODHA DEVI 30) BIBI MAHRUN NISA 31) ETWARIA DEVI 32) RAJU RANA 33) KHEMAN RANA 34) JHARI RANA ALIAS PINTU RANA 35) DEO RANA ALIAS DEO KUMAR RANA 36) PRABHAT RANA 37) JYOTI DEVI ALIAS MUNIYA DEVI 38) GENDO MAHTO 39) KISHUN SAO 40) RADHWA DEVI 41) BISHESHWAR RANA -2- C.M.P. No. 208 of 2025 42) LALU GOPE 43) JALIL MIAN 44) KHALIL MIAN 45) KAMRUDDIN MIAN 46) HALIM MIAN 47) TETARI KHATOON 48) MUKESH KUSHWAHA 49) ASHUTOSH KUMAR 50) ANKIT KUSHWAHA Sl.NO.1 to Sl.No.50, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PASAI, PO REWALI PS KATKAMDAG AND DISTRICT HAZARIBAGH 51) AJAY KUMAR SINGH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA HARINAGAR, LEPO ROAD, PO HAZARIBAGH PS SADAR AND DISTRICT HAZARIBAGH 52) KAMRUDDIN MIAN RESIDENT OF MILLAGE MATWARI (NEAR IMLI CHOWK) PO HAZARIBAGH, PS SADAR AND DISTRICT HAZARIBAGH ……… Defendants/ Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate For the Opposite Party(s) : ---- 4/04.03.2025 Heard Mr. Chanchal Jain the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in Partition Suit No.175 of 2006 by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) IX, Hazaribagh, whereby two petitions both dated 14.03.2024 filed by the purchasers/defendants (respondent nos.6 to 8, 15 to 22, 26,27,31,33,35 to 37 and 52) has been allowed and to recall the order dated 03.05.2014 has also been allowed. 3. Mr. Chanchal Jain the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the suit was already proceeded and at the fag end of the suit, the documents have been filed by the defendants which has been allowed by the learned court. He submits that at such belated stage, the said order has been passed and the order dated 03.05.2014 has also been recalled which is against the mandate of law. On this ground, he submits that the said order may kindly be set aside. He relied in the case of Y.N.Gupta v. Jagdish Chander Sharma and Another reported in 2010 (116) DRJ 737 and he -3- C.M.P. No. 208 of 2025 submits that belatedly the filing of the documents have been allowed, and in view of that, the Delhi High Court has dismissed the same in that case. 4. From the impugned order, it transpires that the learned trial court has found that the documents are the certified copy of the original documents and in the written statement the defendants have mentioned about certain documents and in view of that the learned court has been pleased to allow the petition for bringing on record the documents. The documents have been allowed and the relevance of which can be examined by the learned trial court on the basis of the evidence to be laid, but to deprive a party to the suit not to file the document(s) even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice. It is well settled that the rules and the procedures are the hand-maid of justice and even there is some delay, the learned trial court should allow the same imposing some cost, rather than to decline the production of the document itself. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Levaku Pedda Reddamma and Others v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma and Others in Civil Appeal No.4096 of 2022. The learned trial court finding relevance of such document has also allowed for filing of the same and the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order as the said document can be proved by way of leading evidence. As such, C.M.P. No.208 of 2025 is dismissed. 5. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of, accordingly. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/