2025:JHHC:36975 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No.945 of 2025 Kartik Chandra Chatterjee, S/o Late Durgapada Chatterjee, R/o Village- Parghabad, Patherdih, PO- Patherdih, PS- Sudamdih, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand). .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus Bishwanath Banerjee, S/o Late Mathur Chandra Banerjee, R/o Village- Parghabad, Patherdih, PO- Patherdih, PS- Sudamdih, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. V. Kumar, Advocate Ms. Diksha Rani, Advocate Ms. Priya Saw, Advocate Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate M/s Nishad Khan, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, Advocate …... 03/ 08.12.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner. 1. The instant Civil Misc. Petition has been filed against the order dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure-7) passed by Civil Judge, (Jr. Div.) No.1, Dhanbad, in Title (Eviction) Suit No.11 of 2014. 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit was filed on 02.05.2014, written statement was filed on 02.09.2014 and thereafter the issues were settled on 18.08.2017. The plaintiff’s evidence was closed on 24.06.2019. The case was posted from 25.11.2019 to 09.05.2025 for evidence of the defendant and then case was posted for argument. 3. On 11.06.2025, the petition dated 13.05.2025 was recalled and it was again posted for the evidence of defendant on 12.06.2025 subject to payment to cost of Rs.1000/- for examination of one Narayan Mahato. On 12.06.2025, no witness was produced and instead, a petition for recall of D.W.1 was filed to prove a document signed over a revenue stamp into evidence so as to prove that the said property belonged to one Reba Roy Choudhary who had rented out the room to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- since the year, 1983. 4. It is argued that this document had earlier also been rejected by the trial Court and had not been accepted. Further, the signature of the K. Ray Choudhary at the bottom of the document will disclose that she claims to have signed over it for K. Ray Choudhary. 2025:JHHC:36975 2 5. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the defendant/ opposite party that although evidence of the plaintiff was closed in the year, 2019, but in the year, 2021 Ext-6 was exhibited on his behalf. It is also contended that it is a factually incorrect submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the said document had earlier not been accepted by the learned trial Court and had been rejected. Further, it was not identified as ‘X’ for the identification. 6. In every civil suit, there is a party who gains by delay in disposal of the case. Wherever it is a suit for recovery of possession of an immovable property, the party who is in illegal possession tries to procrastinate the trial. 7. Having heard, learned counsel for the parties, the suit was filed on 02.05.2014, written statement was filed on 02.09.2014 and thereafter the issues were settled on 18.08.2017. The plaintiff’s evidence was closed on 24.06.2019. The case was posted from 25.11.2019 to 09.05.2025 i.e. for six years for evidence of the defendant and then case was posted for argument. Six years have elapsed since the case was posted for defence evidence, and the defendant is procrastinating the trial on one pretext or the another. The document which now the defendant seeks to adduce is to dispute the title of the landlord which is impermissible under section 116 of the Evidence Act. The Trial Court allowed the petition despite the fact that defendant had sufficient opportunity to lead evidence on earlier occasion. 8. Under the circumstance the order impugned is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/pawan/ Uploaded 9.12.2025.