2025:JHHC:27612 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 692 of 2025 Ganesh Chand Lal Choudhary, S/o Late Radhe Chand Lal Choudhary, R/o Rajabati, Belan Bazaar, P.S. Kasim Bazaar, P.O. & Dist. Munger, Bihar, PIN- 811201 ..... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, PO & PS Dumka, Dist Dumka, PIN-814101, Jharkhand. 3. The Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, PO & PS Dumka, Dist. Dumka, PIN-814101, Jharkhand. 4. Catholic Diocese, Dhundhnai, Dumka, through its Secretary, Bishop House, PO & PS Dumka, Dist. Dumka, PIN-814101, Jharkhand. … …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate Ms. Richa Lal, Advocate For the State : AC to Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II For the O.P. 4 : Ms. Vipul Divya, Advocate ------ Order No. 03 / Dated : 10.09.2025. 1. The instant civil misc. petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendant against the order dated 18.01.2025 passed in L.A.R. No. 04 of 2005, whereby and whereunder, the Trial Court has exhibited the certified copy of the sale deed No. 3234/84 dated 12.12.1984. 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the objection is on the ground that this document was available with the plaintiff/opposite party since inception, however, it was filed at the fag end of the trial at the stage of argument. It is also submitted that without accounting for the original sale deed, the certified copy of the same has been adduced into evidence without complying with the requirement of Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. 3. Earlier the original sale deed was filed which was not marked as the exhibit and aggrieved by the order, the plaintiff had moved this Court in C.M.P. No. 304 of 2024 which was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party/awardee has defended the impugned order. 2025:JHHC:27612 5. So far the objection to marking of a document as exhibit is concerned, it can basically be on two grounds. First is regarding to its admissibility, and the second is about the mode of its proof. 6. In the present case, since the certified copy of the sale deed has been adduced into evidence and marked as exhibit, there cannot be any valid objection to the mode of proof in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2023 Live Law SC 811 (Appaiya Vs. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi & Ors. Regarding the relevancy, no serious objection has been made. The main concern that has been expressed on behalf of the petitioner is that it will lead to delay in disposal of the case. 7. Mere marking of a document cannot entail delay, so this Court is not impressed by the argument. 8. I do not find any merit in the civil misc. petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. Since it is a land acquisition case of the year 2005, therefore, the case be disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -