2025:JHHC:32908 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No.911 of 2025 1.Uday Shankar Jha, S/o Late Karuna Shankar Jha, R/o Bhola Panda Path, PO + PS + Distt.- Deoghar. 2.Deo Shankar Jha, S/o Late Karuna Shankar Jha, R/o R/o Bhola Panda Path, PO + PS + Distt.- Deoghar. .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1.Dani Shankar Jha, S/o Late Karuna Shankar Jha, R/o Bhola Panda Path, PO + PS + Distt.- Deoghar. 2.Shiv Shankar Jha, S/o Late Karuna Shankar Jha, R/o Bhola Panda Path, PO + PS + Distt.- Deoghar. 3.Anjana Jejware, W/o Subodh Jha R Jejware, D/o Late Karuna Shankar Jha, R/o Shyama Charan Mishra Lane, PO + PS + Distt.- Deoghar. 4.Giribala Jha, W/o Late Jata Shankar Jha, R/o Bhola Panda Path, PO + PS + Distt.- Deoghar. 5.Uma Shankar Jha, S/o Late Jata Shankar Jha, R/o Bhola Panda Path, PO + PS + Distt.- Deoghar. 6.Daya Shankar Jha, S/o Late Jata Shankar Jha, R/o Bhola Panda Path, PO + PS + Distt.- Deoghar. 7.Ravi Shankar Jha, S/o Late Jata Shankar Jha, R/o Bhola Panda Path, PO + PS + Distt.- Deoghar. 8.Girija Shankar Jha, S/o Late Jata Shankar Jha, R/o Bhola Panda Path, PO + PS + Distt.- Deoghar. 9.Dr. Kumar Alok, S/o Late Geeta Jha and Pradeep Kumar Jha, R/o Medicine Centre, Court More, PO and PS- Hirapur, District- Dhanbad. 10.Ritika Jha, D/o Late Geeta Jha and Pradeep Kumar Jha, W/o Kumar Pushkar, Medicine Centre, Court More, PO + PS- Hirapur, District- Dhanbad. 11.Pradeep Kumar Jha, S/o of not know, Medicine Centre, Court More, PO and PS- Hirapur, District- Dhanbad. 12.Gayatri Jha, W/o Shri Kartik Chandra Jha, R/o No.1 Koshi Road Northern Town, Bistupur, PO and PS- Bistupur, Jamshedpur. 13.Arti Jha, W/o Satish Kumar Jha, R/o House No.103, 2nd Floor, DCS, County No.7, Theyappa Road, Kodihalli, PO- HAL IInd Stage, PS- Jeevan Bima Nagar (J. B. Nagar), Bangalore- 560008. 14.Bharti Jha, W/o Dr. Shashi Nath Jha, R/o Flat No.26, Prakriti Apartment, Flat No.D 104, Sector-6, Dwarika, PO and PS- Dwarika Sector 6, District- New Delhi. .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Onkar Nath Tewary, Advocate Mr. Shamiel Raza, Advocate For the Opp. Party (s) : …... 03/ 30.10.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners. 1. The instant CMP has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure-8) passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-VI, Deoghar in Original Suit No.109 of 2008 in which the petition dated 19.05.2025 filed by defendant Nos.4 2025:JHHC:32908 2 to 8 had been allowed and certified copy of gift deed has been permitted to be adduced into evidence and marked as exhibits. 2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in Original Suit No.109 of 2008 which has been filed for getting share in the suit property and for demarcation of share by appointment of Pleader Commissioner and a further prayer has been made for delivery of possession. 3. The challenge to the impugned order is on the ground that earlier vide order dated 08.04.2025, a similar petition filed under Order VIII Rule 1A read with Section 151 CPC by defendant Nos.4 to 8 was allowed by the learned Trial Court by stating that the gift deed is not a public document and the same cannot be marked as Ext. Subsequently, another petition was filed by the same set of defendants on change of Presiding Officer, which was barred by res-judicata, but has been allowed by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that once the petition under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC was allowed being gift deed not being public document and cannot be exhibited therefore, it was impermissible on the part of the subsequent Presiding Officer, to have entertained the same petition. 5. It is secondly argued that no cogent reason has been assigned with regard to due diligence and documents having not been filed or referred to at the time of filing of written statement. 6. Written statement was filed on 24.01.2009, whereas the petition for adducing into evidence the certified copy of the gift deed has been filed on 19.05.2025. 7. It is further argued that the certified copy was secondary evidence and could not have been adduced into evidence, without accounting for original deed of gift which was a primary evidence in terms of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. It is also argued that it is not a genuine certified copy as it does not mention the book number, volume number, index number as well as page number. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, the matter for consideration before this Court is whether there is sufficient ground for interfering with the impugned order in exercise of extra-ordinary power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? 2025:JHHC:32908 3 9. Issues that have been raised are specifically in two folds. The first is about the stage on which the certified copy of the gift deed has been adduced into evidence and the second is the mode of its proof. 10. So far as the objection regarding the mode of proof is concerned, it is devoid of much substance for the reason that the registered gift deed is of the year 1992 when the contents of the instrument of registered gift deed used to be entered in register maintained by the Registry Office. The certified copy of the said documents was issued in terms of Section 57 (5) of the Registration Act which provides that the certified copy will be the true copy of its original. With regard to mode of proof, it has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh [(2001) 6 SCC 254], that the certified copy of the registered sale-deed is admissible into evidence and does not need to prove it by calling a witness. Here the deed of gift is a registered instrument of gift and there is no much difference, with that of a sale-deed, except for the reason that there is no consideration amount paid so far as gift deed is concerned. Therefore, this Court is not impressed by the argument with regard to mode of proof of the gift deed before the learned Trial Court, by its certified copy. 11. There is some substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that once a petition was allowed by the learned Trial Court under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC being gift deed not marked as Ext. as it was not a public document and the subsequent petition for the same relief filed by the same party (s) should not have been entertained by the Trial Court as it will be technically barred by principles of res- judicata. 12. So far as Order VIII Rule 1A CPC is concerned, on leave of the Court a document if not filed at the time of filing of the written statement and the same can be permitted to be adduced into evidence. Rule 1A requires that the document on which the defendants place reliance either for their defence, or claim for set off or counter claim shall be entered in the list of documents which are in his possession. However, where a document which is relevant and not beyond the pleading of the defendant cannot be produced, the same is still admissible and the evidence cannot be set out on technical grounds. The Hon’ble Apex Court in (2020) 10 SCC 706 (Sugandhi Vs. P. Rajkumar) held that sub-rule (3) of Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC provides second opportunity to the defendant to produce documents which ought to 2025:JHHC:32908 4 have been produced in the Court along with the written statement with the leave of the Court. There cannot be a straight jacket formula while exercising the discretion conferred upon the Court to grant such leave. Procedure is the handmade of justice, and the technicities shall not be allowed to come in the way of the Court while doing substantial justice. 13. Law with regard to scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is no more res-integra and was settled on the long line of judicial precedents. It is settled that Article 227 of the Constitution of India is extra-ordinary power and should be used sparingly to advance substantial justice. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Bhatia vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia [2018(2) SCC 87] that supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 is confined, and to see whether inferior court or Tribunal has exceeded parameters of its jurisdiction, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the High Court does not act as a Court of appeal upon the order of inferior Court or Tribunal, and it is not open to review or reassess the evidence on which the inferior Court or tribunal has passed order. 14. It is true that learned Trial Court committed procedural irregularity while passing the impugned order, even after the prayer for the same relief had been earlier rejected by his predecessor. This, however, being a procedural lapse, cannot be a ground for interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction and more so, when the impugned order otherwise does not suffer from any infirmity. 15. Proof of a document and its effect are two different things. Learned Trial Court will consider the issue to the effect of the document i.e. the gift deed while appreciating the evidence in its totality. The petitioners/plaintiffs will, however, be given an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal. This Civil Misc. Petition stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/- Uploaded 04.11.2025.