2025:JHHC:34787 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No.220 of 2024 1.Prafullya Goswami 2.Atul Goswami Both S/o Late Sripati Goswami and R/o Village- Barmesia, PO- Tilaki, PS- Bindapathar, District- Jamtara. 3.Smt. Mohima Goswami, W/o Binoy Goswami and D/o Late Chandi Goswami 4.Smt. Anima Goswami, W/o Sudhir Goswami and D/o Late Chandi Goswami Both 3 & 4 are residents of Village- Barmeshia, PO- Tilaki, PS- Bindapathar, District- Jamtara. .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Lakhan Goswami (deleted) 2. Naresh Goswami 3. Paresh Goswami 4. Brindawan Goswami 5. Chintamoni Goswami All sons of Late Sarju Goswami 6. Manoj Goswami, S/o Lakhan Goswami 7. Bhagirath Goswami , S/o Lakhan Goswami 8. Manjura Goswami, S/o Lakhan Goswami 9. Satish Goswami, S/o Naresh Goswami 10. Jyotilal Goswami, S/o Naresh Goswami 11. Pradip Goswami, S/o Naresh Goswami 12. Kailash Goswami, S/o Paresh Goswami 13. Minor, Ujjawal Goswami, S/o Paresh Goswami, the minor represented through his father and natural guardian, Paresh Goswami, S/o Late Sarju Goswami. 14. Altabati Goswami, W/o Kalu Goswami and D/o Late Sarju Goswami 15. Indrajit Goswami, S/o Late Kangal Goswami 16. Nitai Goswami, S/o Late Kangal Goswami All R/o Village- Barmesia, PO- Tilaki, PS- Bindapather, District- Jamtara. 17. Smt. Keshobati Goswami, Widow of Late Shanakar Goswami, R/o Village – Sonabad, PS-Loran, PO- Ranidih, District- Deoghar. 18. Mamta Goswami, W/o Suresh Goswami, R/o Toro, PO & PS- Bindapathar, District- Jamtara. 19. Narayan Goswami 20. Manilal Goswami Both 19 & 20 are sons of Late Bijoy Goswami. 21A. Shanti Devi, Widow of Late Gurupado Goswami 21B. Ranjit Goswami, S/o Late Gurupado Goswami 21C. Laxmi Goswami, S/o Late Gurupado Goswami 21D. Saurav Goswami, S/o Late Gurupado Goswami 21A to 21D, all are R/o Village- Dalpatra, PO & PS- Bindapahtar, District- Jamtara. 22.Nitai Goswami, S/o Late Malinda Goswami, R/o Village- Khorabar, PO- Jamgram, PS- Baradoni, District- Birbhum, West Bengal. 23A.Brajkishore Goswami, S/o Late Sripati Goswami and Rohini Goswami 23B.Manik Goswami, S/o Late Sripati Goswami and Rohini Goswami Both 23 A and 23B are R/o Village- Dudhichua, PO & PS- Chitra, District- Deoghar. 23C. Susma Devi, W/o Ananda Goswami and D/o Late Sripati Goswami, R/o Village- Alanbera, PO- Sikatia, PS- Chitra, District- Deoghar. 24. Prebasi Goswami, W/o Late Gangadhar Goswami, R/o Village- Jordiha, PO- T.K. Gram PS- Fatehpur, District- Jamtara. 2025:JHHC:34787 .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Pd. Joshi, Advocate For the O.P(s). : Mr. K. Sarkhel, Advocate Mrs. Priyanka Bobby, Advocate …... 12/ 20.11.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. Petitioners are the defendants and are aggrieved by the order dated 12.02.2024 (Annexure-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-I, Jamtara in Original Suit No.59 of 2015 by which the petition filed under Order VIII, Rule 1A (3) CPC seeking leave of Court to adduce into evidence certain documents on behalf of the defendants just after the evidence of the plaintiff has been dismissed. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners /defendants that the documents which the party(s) seeks to bring on record are all public documents and could not be filed along with the written statement as they were misplaced and could not be traced earlier. 3. The documents as per the list are as under :- I. Order dated 20.04.2010 passed by the Court of Sub Judge No.1, Jamtara in T.S. Suit No.84 of 1989; II. Decree Sheet dated 01.05.2010 in T.S. Suit No.84 of 1989 of the Court of Sub Judge No.1, Jamtara; III. Joint petition of compromise filed before the Court of Sub Judge No.1, Jamtara in T.S. Suit No.84 of 1989 by plaintiff- Mamatabala Dasi on the one side and Defendants Prafullya Gossain and Atul Gossain; IV. Original Plaint of T.S. Suit No.84 of 1989 filed by Sreemati Mamata Bala Devi; V. Original Written Statements of Defendant No.01, Prafullya Gossain filed in T. S. Suit No.84 of 1989; 4. It is argued that these documents are relevant and will not prejudice the plaintiff. It is argued that the provisions under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC is not mandatory in nature in view of the ratio laid down in Sugandhi (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. P. Rajkumar passed in Civil Appeal No.3427 of 2020 (arising out of SLP [C] No.16491 of 2019). 5. Learned counsel for the Opp. Parties / plaintiffs submits that not a single explanation for the delay has been given in the petition seeking 2025:JHHC:34787 leave to file these documents and the plaintiffs will be prejudiced as the evidence of the plaintiffs has been closed and will have no opportunity to rebut the same. 6. Having considered the submissions, this court is of the view that provision under Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC is not mandatory in nature, and for the end of justice, provision has been made under sub-rule (3),to permit such documents to be adduced into evidence which could not be filed at inception. 7. Impugned order is set aside and the instant CMP stands allowed subject to the conditions that the plaintiffs will be given opportunity to rebut the evidence led on behalf of the defendants as per law. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/- Uploaded 21.11.2025