2025:JHHC:30950 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 786 of 2025 Kilo Nayak aged about 56 years son of Late Jethu Nayak, resident of village Kute Toli, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi. ..... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Ravindra Kumar son of Sri Sudama Vishwakarma 2. Babita Kumari wife of Sri Umesh Kumar Both are residents of Bank Colony, Vikash Nagar, Ratu Road, P.Ο. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi. 3. Asnan Nayak son of Late Jethu Nayak, resident of village Kute Toli, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi. 4. Geriya Nayak son of Late Leda Nayak 5. Shankar Nayak son of Late Badho Nayak 6. Guni Nayak son of late Badho Nayak 7. Santosh Nayak son of Late Andhu Nayak 8. Surju Nayak son of Late Nandlal Nayak 9. Mangra Nayak, son of Late Chattu Nayak No. 4 to 9 are residents of village Kute Toli, Chanda Ghansi, P.O. and P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. … …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kr. Chakraverty, Advocate Mr. Pawan Ranjan Khatri, Advocate Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : ------ Order No. 03 / Dated : 07.10.2025. 1. The question of law raised at the Bar in the instant civil misc. petition is, can a prayer to summon a witness to formally prove a document can be rejected on the ground, that the said document has been marked as Ext. X for identification? 2. The petitioner is the objector in L.A. Case No. 29/2013 and is aggrieved by the order dated 01.08.2025 whereby and whereunder, a petition dated 23.04.2024 to summon the Mukhia/Ward Counsellor who issued the genealogical table has been rejected on the ground that it was an old case and earlier it had been marked as Ext. X. 3. The ground of rejection defies any reason. On perusal of the earlier order by which it was marked as Ext. ‘X’ for identification shows that the genealogical table was not proved and rightly so, as it was not a public document. This did not forfeit the right to formally prove it, by leading evidence. However, when the petitioner moved the Trial Court to summon the author of 2025:JHHC:30950 document, the same has been rejected without any cogent reason. 4. Proof of document, and its legal effect are two different and distinct things. A document is to be proved as per the procedure as laid down in Part II of the Evidence Act and after the said document is proved, its evidentiary value is to be considered against the background of the totality of other evidences on record. Under Section 47 of the Evidence Act, a document can be proved by the author of document or by anyone who is acquainted with the handwriting of whom it is supposed to be written or signed. Once a document is filed which is relevant and admissible into evidence under Part I, the party concerned has to prove it in terms of Part II of the Evidence Act. A party can produce the witness to prove a document at his own, or move the court for summoning the witness under Order XVI of the CPC. 5. Grounds for refusing to summon the witness is not sustainable which is not sustainable and is accordingly, set aside. 6. The Trial Court is directed to take steps for summoning the author of document for proving the said genealogy. The Trial Court will consider the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Bihar Vs. Radha Krishna Singh {(1983) 3 SCC 118} in considering the evidentiary value of the genealogy. This civil misc. petition is allowed. Pending I.As., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) 07.10.2025 Pawan/ -