Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 40641 (JHR)

MANJRI DEVI v. GOPAL YADAV

C.M.P./1038/2025 · 2025-11-11

Gautam Kumar Choudhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:33705 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1038 of 2025 1. Manjri Devi, Widow of Late Ishwar Yadav 2. Sarita Devi, aged about 35 years, widow of late Arun Yadav; 3. Payal Kumari, aged about 09 years; 4. Sujal Kumar, aged about 06 years; Both minor children of Late Arun Yadav represented through their natural guardian and mother- Sarita Devi, widow of Late Arun Yadav; All residents of Village-Gomia, Toa Padaria, P.O. & P.S.-Gomia, District- Bokaro ..... .... Petitioners Versus 1. Gopal Yadav, son of Late Bhuneshwar Yadav; 2. Sugia Devi, widow of late Bhuneshwar Yadav; 3. Upendra Yadav, Yadav; son of Late Bhuneshwar Yadav All are residents of Village-Gomia, Toa- Padaria, P.O. & P.S. Gomia, District- Bokaro … …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : ------ Order No. 05 / Dated : 11.11.2025. 1. The instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 14.02.2025 passed in Original Partition Suit No. 61 of 2017 by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-II, Bermo at Tenughat. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that original panchnama dated 29.03.2016 had been filed and was sought to be proved by P.W.- 3, who was examined on 18.09.2024. The document was to be proved formally as per Section 47 of the Evidence Act, and there was no prayer for admitting the said document as a public document and marked as exhibit. Despite this, the document has been refused to be marked as exhibit by stating that it was not a public document. 3. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears to be cryptic and non-speaking order. 4. Under the circumstance, the impugned order is set aside and learned Trial Court is directed to pass reasoned order for not admitting the said document into evidence and marking it as exhibit. Petitioners will be permitted to recall the said witness for the formal proof of the document. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ - Uploaded 13.11.2025