1 2026:CGHC:2472 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1 of 2021 1 - Pawara Bai (Died) Through Lrs As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 08-09-2025 1.1 - Puniram Sahu S/o Kedar Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Vill- Pikri, Tah. Kasdol, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shrwan Kumar S/o Shiv Kumar Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Hasuwa, Police Station Gidhouri, Tahsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 2. : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 15.01.2026 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 01.12.2020 passed by the Civil Judge Class- 1, Kasdol District- Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara (C.G.). By the impugned order, the application of the petitioner under Order 8 Rule (1) (Ka) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short CPC) was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition was initially filed by one Pawara Bai D/o late Aatmaram Sahu, against whom respondent HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.01.16 17:05:07 +0530 2 No.1 had instituted a civil suit for declaration, partition, separate possession, and injunction before the Civil Judge, Class-I, Kasdol, District–Baloda Bazar– Bhatapara (C.G.). It is further submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, Pawara Bai expired and her legal representatives were duly substituted on record. Learned counsel submits that an application under Order VIII Rule 1(Ka) of the CPC was filed seeking permission to place on record a partition deed (Batwaranama/Iqrarnama) which came to be rejected by the impugned order solely on the ground that the said document was not registered and, therefore, could not be taken on record. He submits that the impugned order is bad in law, as mere placing of a document on record does not ipso facto amount to proof of the document. The question as to whether the partition deed (Batwaranama) can be exhibited during the course of evidence or whether it is admissible in evidence is required to be adjudicated by the learned Civil Court at the appropriate stage. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Z. Engineers Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Bipin Bihari Behera and Others reported in AIR 2020 SC 1140. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the application filed by the original petitioner does not disclose any sufficient or satisfactory reason explaining as to why the document could not be filed earlier. The reason assigned therein that the document was kept in some other file does not constitute a valid or sufficient ground. It is thus submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the dispute essentially pertains to the petitioner and respondent No.1. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3 6. The application under Order VIII Rule 1(Ka) of the CPC was filed by the original petitioner who was defendant No.1 in the civil suit seeking to place on record an Iqrarnama (partition deed). It appears that the document in question is unregistered and the sole ground for refusing to take the same on record is that it is not a registered document. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Z. Engineers Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has observed in paragraphs 12 to 14 as under: “12. We find that the question whether possession was transferred at the time or after execution of such power of attorney is a question of fact which is required to be decided by the Court at the time of final decision being adjudicated, after evidence is led by the parties and not merely on the basis of recitals in the power of attorney. Such process would be fair and reasonable keeping in view the provisions of Orissa Act. 13. We find that in the facts of the present case, the objection related to deficiency in stamp duty on a power of attorney which the appellants claim to be conveyance, depends upon the finding regarding delivery of possession in terms of the power of attorney. Generally speaking, such objection is required to be decided before proceeding further. However, in a case where evidence is required to determine the nature of the document, it is reasonable to defer the admissibility of a document for insufficient stamp duty at the time of final decision in the suit. 14. Therefore, we find that the order passed by the trial court on 14th December, 2018 and the High Court on 24th January, 2019 are liable to be set aside and are, thus, set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial court to decide the objection of admissibility of the document on account of being insufficiently stamped in light of the findings recorded, after evidence is led by the parties. The application dated 3rd September, 2018 filed by the appellants shall be decided along with the main suit, when the question of delivery of possession at the time of the execution of the power of attorney or thereafter shall be determined.” 4 7. Mere placing of a document on record does not amount to its proof. The question of admissibility of the document can always be raised by respondent No.1–plaintiff at the stage of evidence and the learned Civil Court is competent to adjudicate upon the admissibility of the document in accordance with law. Therefore, rejection of the application at the threshold solely on the ground of non-registration is unsustainable. Therefore, the impugned order dated 01.12.2020 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Order VIII Rule 1(Ka) of the CPC is allowed. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari