2025:JHHC:27610 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No. 380 of 2025 1. Seneth Munda, S/o Late Simon Munda 2. Smt. Sarita Munda, W/o Senet Munda, both are R/o Village-Hethu, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. Rajesh Kachhap, S/o Late Putul Oraon, R/o Village-Hundro, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi 2. Margo Kachhap, W/o Late Jhadi Kachhap 3. Raju Kacchap, S/o Late Jhadi Kachhap, All R/o Village-Hethu, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi 4. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O.-GPO, P.S.-Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi .... .... Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For Opp. Party No. 1 : Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate For Opp. Party No. 4 : Ms. Shalni Sahdeo, AC to (L&C)-1 ----- Oral Order 07 / Dated : 10.09.2025 1. Petitioners are the defendants and the instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order dated 11.12.2024 passed in O.S. No.173 of 2014 by which the petition filed by petitioners on 06.12.2024 to adduce into evidence, the certified copy of award dated 12.03.2013 has been rejected and the defence evidence has also been closed. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioners that the document is relevant and will have a direct bearing on claim of title over the suit property, for the reason that award was prepared before filing the suit and relates to the suit property. It is submitted by learned counsel that this award is in favour of ancestor of the petitioners, which was not within their knowledge at the time of filing of the written statement and therefore, it was not disclosed in terms of Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC. Learned trial court has summarily rejected this document without considering the grounds taken for this to be adduced into evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has defended the impugned order and submitted that no reason was assigned for not referring the 2025:JHHC:27610 2 written statement and due diligence was not exercised for obtaining it and has been produced at the fag end. 4. Having considered the submissions advanced, the document, which has been refused to be marked as exhibit, is regarding the part of suit land which was acquired and the final award was made on 12.03.2013. The relevancy of the document is not under challenge. The only ground on which it has been turned down is the stage of trial. 5. This court is of the view that substantial justice should not suffer on hyper technical grounds. Marking of exhibit will not consume a day as it is a public document. 6. The impugned order is set aside. 7. The defence will be granted three adjournments for leading on his evidence within a fortnight. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. This Civil Misc. Petition is, accordingly, allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra