2025:JHHC:33221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 990 of 2025 ------ Prahalad Sao, son of Late Bhola Sao, resident of Village Badkitunu, Tola Putkadih, P.O. and P.S. Mahuatand, District Bokaro (Jharkhand), at present residing at Kodwatand, P.O. and P.S. Mahuatand (O.P. Lalpania), District Bokaro (Jharkhand) .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro 2. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, T.T.P.S. (Tenughat Thermal Power Station), Lalpania, P.O. Lalpania, P.S. Mahuatand (O.P. Lalpania), District Bokaro (Jharkhand) 3. Estate Officer, T.T.P.S. Lalpania, P.S. Mahuatand (O.P. Lalpania), District Bokaro (Jharkhand) 4. District Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro 5. Anchal Adhikari, Gomia, P.O. and P.S. Gomia, District Bokaro 6. Ranjeet Sao @ Guddu, son of Late Bhola Sao, resident of Village Badkitunu, Tola Putkadih, P.O. and P.S. Mahuatand, District Bokaro (Jharkhand) residing at Kodwatand, P.O. and P.S. Mahuatand (O.P. Lalpania), District Bokaro (Jharkhand) .... .... .... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate For the State : Ms. Omiya Anusha, A.C. to A.A.G. IA Order No.07 / Dated : 06.11.2025 Instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 01.05.2025 passed in Original Title Suit No.79 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the petition dated 17.03.2024 has been rejected. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that the said petition was inter alia for leave of the Court to prove certain documents filed before the learned trial Court including a public document as mentioned in the said petition. The petitioner seeks only one adjournment to prove all the documents for which the petition under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC has been filed. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of State that in the instant petition, a prayer has been made for impounding the Hukumnama which has been marked as Exhibit X and there is no such provision under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC for impounding any document. It is also submitted that the issue in this case was framed on 04.08.2016 and the 2025:JHHC:33221 evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 03.03.2025, after nine years in which sufficient opportunities were given. 4. Having considered the submission advanced, there cannot be any quarrel with the legal proposition canvassed on behalf of the State that Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC is not concerned with impounding of the documents. However, from the line of argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that the plea for impounding of the document is not being pressed and the prayer is now confined to adjournment for one day, to formally prove the documents already filed in the year 2013 before the learned trial Court. The prayer for one adjournment to prove certain documents before the learned trial Court is allowed subject to payment of a cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) which will be deposited by way of a treasury challan. Civil Miscellaneous Petition sands disposed of. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit Uploaded 10.11.2025