-1- C.M.P. No. 233 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 233 of 2025 Loknath Dangi @ Loknath Prasad Dangi, aged about 63 years, son of Deva Dangi @ Mahto, resident of Tiker Tola Kashiyadih, P.O. Tiker, P.S. Chatra, District- Chatra, Jharkhand … Petitioner -Versus- 1. Mosst. Budhani Devi, wife of Late Chhedi Mahto 2. Uday Dangi, son of Late Chhedi Mahto 3. Manoj Dangi, son of Late Chhedi Mahto 4. Nakul Dangi Jhaman Saw, son of Chhedi Mahto 5. Bital Mahto @ Dangi, S/o Late Ganpat Mahto 6. Shambhu Dangi, S/o Late Palo Mahto 7. Vijay Dangi, S/o Late Devaram Dangi 8. Mukesh Dangi, S/o Late Deva Ram Dangi 9. Most. Shanti Devi, W/o Late Deva Dangi All resident of Tiker Tola Kashiyadih, P.O. Tiker, P.S. Chatra, District- Chatra 10. Phaguni Devi, W/o Late Puran Bhuiyan 11. Darogi Bhuiyan, S/o Late Puran Bhuiyan 12. Ramdeo Bhuiyan, S/o Late Puran Bhuiyan 13. Ramchandra Bhuiyan, S/o Late Puran Bhuiyan 14. Badri Bhuiyan, S/o late Utim Bhuiyan 15. Duali Bhuiyan, S/o Late Utim Bhuiyan 16. Jagdish Bhuiyan, S/o Late Dukhan Bhuiyan 17. Degan Bhuiyan, S/o Late Dukhan Bhuiyan 18. Prem Bhuiyan, S/o Late Dukhan Bhuiyan 19. Rampati Bhuiyan, S/o Late Dukhan Bhuiyan 20. Bardhani Devi, W/o Khiru Bhuiyan (Respondent Nos. 10 to 20 R/o Tiker, P.O. Tiker, P.S. Chatra, District- Chatra) 21. Smt. Prema Devi, W/o Krishna Dangi, R/o Barisakhi, P.O. Barisakhi, P.S. Gidhor, District- Chatra 22. Smt. Urmila Devi, W/o Saryu Dangi, R/o Changer, P.O. Tikar, P.S. & District- Chatra 23. Runa Devi, W/o Darogi Bhuiyan, R/o Tikar, P.O. Tikar, P.S. & District- Chatra … Opposite Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : ----- 04/11.03.2025 Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the prayer is made for quashing the order dated 11.09.2024 passed in Original (Partition) Suit No.29 of 2012 by the learned Civil Judge -2- C.M.P. No. 233 of 2025 (Junior Division)-I, Chatra, whereby, the petition dated 05.07.2024 filed by the petitioner-plaintiff has been rejected. 3. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 4 are having joint raiyati lands and they have their right, title and interest. He further submits that the suit land measuring an area of 14-54 acres in total plots 118 under Khewat No.4 as shows in remarks column as Samilat Malikan, which is part and parcel piece of the suit lands Schedule B of the plaint situated at Village Tikar, Tola Kashiyadih, P.O. Tikar, P.S. Chatra, District- Chatra. He refers genealogy and submits that the partition suit is pending since the year 2012 and the defendant nos. 5 to 9, who are opposite party nos. 5 to 20 in the present petition, have claimed that certain part of the property has been purchased by them in Auction Case No.177/1932-33 and in view of that, the petition has been filed to call for the record of the said auction case, however, the learned Court has been pleased to reject the same. He submits that the said document is necessary to prove the case of the petitioner-plaintiff and in view of that, the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 4. From the order of the learned trial Court, it transpires that the said suit is pending since the year 2012 and the record was running at the stage of defendant evidence and in the meantime, the said petition was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff to call for record in Auction Case No.177/1932-33 from Record Room, Hazaribagh. On the prayer of the petitioner-plaintiff for the said auction case, the suit was pending before the learned Court since 24.01.2020, however, it was not produced by the petitioner-plaintiff and, thereafter, the said petition was filed. The petitioner-plaintiff has even not -3- C.M.P. No. 233 of 2025 been able to file photocopy of the said auction case and in view of that, the learned Court has held that onus lies on the petitioner-plaintiff to prove the case. It is the duty of the petitioner-plaintiff to bring on record the said document. Even certified copy of the public document can be obtained. The certified copy has not been obtained by the petitioner-plaintiff and it has not been produced before the learned trial court. In spite of sufficient time granted to the petitioner-plaintiff, he has failed to do so and the case is pending since the year 2012. 5. Thus, the Court finds that the learned Court has rightly passed the order. Further in course of argument, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said property has been purchased in auction sale by defendant nos. 5 to 9 and how they purchased the same and how it is joint property, that has not been disclosed in the petition. 6. In view of the above, there is no illegality in the impugned order and, as such, this petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/