2025:JHHC:26168 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 223 of 2025 ------ Bela Devi, wife of Late Murli Sao (Gupta), resident of S.P.G. Mission Compound Area, Ward No.16 (Old 5) of Chaibasa Municipality, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum (Jharkhand) .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Jyoti Khaka, widow of Late Manoranjan S.K. Paty, resident of S.P.G. Mission Compound Area, Ward No.16 (Old 5) of Chaibasa Municipality, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum (Jharkhand) 2. Smt. Shirin Rachna Tirkey, wife of Sri Sonu Rajesh Tirkey, daughter of Late Manoranjan S.K. Paty, resident of Urmila Enclave, B -103, Peace Road, Lalpur, Ranchi 3. Sri Sudhir Ratan Paty, son of Late Manoranjan S.K. Paty, resident of S.P.G. Mission Compound Area, Ward No.16 (Old 5) of Chaibasa Municipality, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum (Jharkhand) 4. Sri Ravi Ranjan Paty, Late Manoranjan S.K. Paty, resident of S.P.G. Mission Compound Area, Ward No.16 (Old 5) of Chaibasa Municipality, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum (Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Advocate Mr. Atif Anwar, Advocate Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Advocate Order No.06 / Dated : 29.08.2025 Instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.01.2025 by which the documents have been marked as Exhibit in Original Suit No. 11 of 2015 filed on behalf of the plaintiff, after the evidence of the defendant was closed. 2. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and confirmation of possession on 06.03.2020 and the evidence of plaintiff was closed on 11.05.2023 and defendant’s evidence was closed on 08.12.2023. After closing of the defendant’s evidence, original Sale Deed No.3525 dated 04.10.1983, original mutation correction slip of Mutation Case No.286 of 1995-96 and certified copy of order sheet of Demarcation Case No.56 of 2005-06 were adduced into evidence by the plaintiff and marked as exhibits. Aggrieved by this order, instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that not a single witness has been examined on behalf of plaintiff/defendant. Despite this, the mandate of law under Order X Rule 1 has not been followed and 2025:JHHC:26168 the learned trial Court has accepted the documents and has been admitted into evidence. 4. Learned counsel on behalf of plaintiff/petitioner submits that originally the plaintiff through his lawyer had filed his examination-in-chief under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC, but he could not turn-up for evidence for the reason that he died on 19.10.2023. These documents were 30 years old and public documents and therefore, they did not require formal proof and therefore, they have been marked with objection. 5. In reply, it is submitted by the learned counsel, Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary that examination-in-chief on affidavit had never been filed before the Court which will be apparent from the order sheet as filed by the petitioner. 6. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of both parties, the question of law that arises for consideration is whether a public document, or a document that is 30 years old, can be marked as an exhibit when the plaintiff had not examined any of his witness. 7. The scheme of the Evidence Act is clear on this aspect and is divided into three parts: Part I (Sections 1–55) deals with relevancy of facts; Part II (Sections 56–100) pertains to the mode of proof; and Part III concerns the production and effect of evidence. In the present case, the documents in question are public documents and are over 30 years old. Accordingly, the learned trial Court marked them as exhibits. I do not find any illegality in the marking of these documents as exhibits. The effect of such marking will, however, depend upon the appreciation of evidence based on the materials available on record, which cannot be examined at the stage of proving the documents. I find no infirmity in the impugned order. Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit