2025:JHHC:23680 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 400 of 2025 1. Goutam Majhi, son of Late Amulya Majhi @ Amulya Barai 2. Uma Barai, wife of Late Amulya Majhi @ Amulya Barai 3. Uttam Majee, son of Late Amulya Majhi @ Amulya Barai 4. Roma Majee, wife of Late Kali Pad Majee 5. Teena Majee, daughter of Late Kali Pad Majee 6. Abhijeet Majee (minor), son of Late Kali Pad Majee, represented through his mother Roma Majee (petitioner no.4) 7. Panchanand Majee, son of Uma Majee 8. Rajendra Kumar Majee, son of Late Amulya Majhi @ Amulya Barai 9. Anjana Majee, wife of Nishit Majhi, 10. Latika Paul, wife of Paban Chandra Paul 11. Arati Das, wife of Nikhil Das 12. Laxmi Devi, wife of Dhirendra Nath Chandra All resident of Village Karmatand, P.O. Karmatand, P.S. Beliapur, District Dhanbad .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. Bhawani Majhi, son of Late Kandan Manjhi, resident of Village Karmatand, P.O. Karmatand, P.S. Beliapur, District Dhanbad 2. Prem Nath Rawani, son of Late Mukunda Rawani, resident of Village Karmatand, P.O. Karmatand, P.S. Beliapur, District Dhanbad 3. Kashinath Rawani, son of Late Mukunda Rawani, resident of Village Karmatand, P.O. Karmatand, P.S. Beliapur, District Dhanbad 4. Bishwanath Rawani, son of Late Mukunda Rawani, resident of Village Karmatand, P.O. Karmatand, P.S. Beliapur, District Dhanbad 5. Santosh Rawani, son of Late Mukunda Rawani, resident of Village Karmatand, P.O. Karmatand, P.S. Beliapur, District Dhanbad 6. Mukta Devi, wife of Niranjan Rawani, daughter of Late Mukunda Rawani, resident of Village Karmatand, P.O. Karmatand, P.S. Beliapur, District Dhanbad 7. Alawati Devi, wife of Ramesh Prasad Rawani, daughter of Late Mukunda Rawani, resident of Village Lalatola, P.O. & P.S. Katras, District Dhanbad 8. Balika Devi, wife of Panchanan Rawani, daughter of Late Mukunda Rawani, resident of Village Upper Devgora, P.O. Mohuda, P.S. Madhuban, District Dhanbad 9. Shasti Charan Bid, son of Late Sambhu Bid, resident of Village Karmatand, P.O. Karmatand, P.S. Beliapur, District Dhanbad .... .... .... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate Ms. Diksha Rani, Advocate Mr. Nishad Khan, Advocate For the O.P. No.1 : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate For the O.P. No.9 : Mr. Kaustav Roy, Advocate 2025:JHHC:23680 Order No.07 / Dated : 13.08.2025 Defendant nos.22 – 33 are before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 06.09.2024 by which the certified copy of the sale deeds and original payment notice in L.A. Case No.11/85-86 and other such documents, have been refused to be admitted into evidence on the ground that similar petition of defendant no.34 was rejected and the case was posted for argument. 2. From the impugned order, it appears that no objection had been raised on behalf of the plaintiffs to adduce these documents into evidence. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel that important piece of evidence has been shut off only on a vague technical ground. 4. Learned counsel on behalf of plaintiffs is before this Court and has raised no objection. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and the materials on record, it appears that the learned trial Court has not stated that the said documents were not relevant, but has straightway rejected it only on the ground that similar petition of one of the defendants had been rejected. Admissibility of a document depends on its relevancy and important piece of evidence cannot be denied mechanically. Since most of these documents are the certified copies of public documents, they do not need formal proof and can be adduced into evidence, it will not procrastinate the trial. Under Section 79 of the Evidence Act, there is a presumption as to genuineness of certified copy and the Court shall presume to be genuine every document purported to be a certified copy or other document which is declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact and which purports to be duly certified. Since certified copies carry a presumption of genuineness under Section 79 of the Evidence Act, they need not be proved by production of original public document. The effect of the presumption is, if anybody challenges the genuineness of the certified copy the burden of proving that fact lies on him, because the Court presumes its genuineness. 6. Further, a sale deed can be proved by production of certified copy of the said deed without its formal proof as has been held in State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, (2001) 6 SCC 254. 2025:JHHC:23680 7. Under the circumstance, impugned order is set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to admit documents into evidence that are relevant to the adjudication of the issues involved. Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit