2026:JHHC:2264 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S. A. No. 224 of 2020 Jaideo Kumhar, aged about 39 years, S/o Gaur Kumhar, Resident of Kumhar Basti, Bhowra, P.O.- Bhowra, P.S.- Jorapokhar, District- Dhanbad … … Defendant No.8/Appellant No.6/Appellant Versus 1. Dashrath Kumhar S/o Late Gopal Kumhar 2. Karamchand Pal S/o Late Gopal Kumhar 3. Chintamani Pal S/o Late Gopal Kumhar 4. Lata Devi W/o Late Gopal Kumhar All are residents of Kumhar Basti, Bhowra No.12, P.O.- Bhowra, P.S.- Sudamdih, District- Dhanbad 5. Padda Kumhar W/o Ajit Kumhar D/o Late Gopal Kumhar, Resident of Villag- Baurah, P.O. & P.S.- Raghunathapur, District- Purulia, West Bengal 6. Binda Kumhar W/o Late Manik Kumhar, D/o Late Gopal Kumhar, Resident of Village- Seneda, P.O.- Seneda, P.S.- Raghunathpur, District- Purulia, West Bengal 7. Gokul Kumhar S/o Late Uday Kumhar 8. Nakul Kumhar S/o Late Uday Kumhar Both Residents of Kumhar Basti, North Bhowra, P.O. & P.S.- Jorapokhar, Kenduadih, District-Dhanbad. ... ... Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents 9. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.- Koyla Nagar, P.S.- Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad 10. The General Manager, Eastern Jharia Area-XI, P.O.- Bhowra, P.S.- Jorapokhar, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 11. Subhash Kumhar S/o Late Ruplal Kumhar 12. Jaideo Kumhar S/o Late Ruplal Kumhar Both residents of Kolakusma, P.O. & P.S.-Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad ... ... Defendants/Respondents/Respondents 13. Bhola Kumar @ Bholanath Paul S/o Late Manhu Kumhar. 14. Gour Kumhar S/o Late Manhu Kumhar 15. Bablu Kumhar S/o Late Manhu Kumhar 16. Mangoni Kumharin W/o Late Kamal Kumhar 17. Padda Kumhharin, D/o Late Kamal Kumhar & W/o Neru Kumhar. All are residents of Kumhar Basti, Bhowra, P.O.- Bhowra, P.S.- Jorapokhar, District- Dhanbad ... ... Defendants/Appellants/Proforma Respondents --- CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Vishwajeet Jee Chaturvedi, Advocate For the Respondent No.9 & 10 : Ms. Arushi Agarwal, Advocate 2026:JHHC:2264 2 --- 10/28.01.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the Defendant No.8 against the Judgment dated 19.08.2020 (Decree signed on 28.08.2020) passed by the learned District Judge-I, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No.44 of 2019 whereby the learned 1st appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Judgment dated 30.01.2019 (Decree signed on 12.02.2019) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Dhanbad in Original (Partition) Suit No.257 of 2011 / Title (Partition) Suit No.257 of 2011 whereby the learned trial court decreed the suit. 3. The appellant in this appeal is the son of Gaur Kumhar; Gaur Kumhar was defendant no.2 in the suit and the present appellant was defendant no. 8 in the suit. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though both the courts have given concurrent findings, but substantial question of law arises in this case inasmuch as the suit was filed before the revenue authority under Section 87 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act seeking rectification of record of right which was allowed in favour of the heirs of Gaur Kumhar. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the legal effect of such suit has not been properly considered by the court. He further submitted that the simple suit of partition itself was not maintainable in view of the order passed under Section 87 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. 5. During the course of hearing and upon a query by this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plaintiffs were not the party in the suit filed under Section 87 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that a partition suit was filed and admittedly, the property involved in this case is recorded in the name of Bharat Kumhar and he died leaving behind three sons namely, Gondhu Kumhar, Saheb Ram Kumhar and Sukhlal Kumhar. The original plaintiff was the 2026:JHHC:2264 3 granddaughter of Gondhu Kumar through his son Harkhu Kumhar. Further case of the plaintiff is as under: - a. The Schedule-A land was allotted to Gondhu Kumhar exclusively and some plots of the land remained joint and ejmal which were not partitioned. b. Gondhu Kumhar died leaving behind his only son Harkhu Kumhar and one daughter Radhi Kumharin, wife of Late Manhu Kumhar. c. Harkhu Kumhar also died leaving his only heir and daughter Amodi Kumharin. d. Radhi Kumharin died leaving behind her four sons namely, Bhola Kumhar (Defendant No.1), Kamal Kumhar, Gour Kumhar (Defendant No.2) and Bablu Kumar (Defendant No.3). Kamal Kumhar died leaving behind his wife Mangoni Kumharin (Defendant No.4) and only daughter and heir namely, Padda Kumharin (Defendant No.5). Defendant Nos.1 to 5 and Defendant No.8, son of Gour Kumhar (Defendant No.2) are defendants 1st party. e. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs and the defendants 1st party are the joint owner of Schedule-A land having ½ and ½ shares. The genealogy given by the plaintiffs has been mentioned in the judgment passed by the learned trial court. f. It was asserted by the plaintiffs that they are governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. Further case of the plaintiffs was that Schedule-A land is joint and ejmal of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1st party. g. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant Nos.6 and 7 of Bharat Coking Coal Limited required Plot No.420 measuring 33 decimals and Plot No.389 measuring 18 decimals, total 51 decimals of Schedule-A land for the purpose of carrying on mining operation and they collusively negotiated with the Defendant No.8 son of Gour Kumhar (Defendant No.2) who was acting on behalf of the Defendant Nos.1 to 5 on the strength of power of attorney for the aforesaid two plots of land. 2026:JHHC:2264 4 h. The plaintiffs claimed ½ share in Plot Nos. 420 and 389 and accordingly, ½ consideration amount for sale of the two plots in favour of Defendant Nos.6 and 7 by taking part in the negotiation. i. It was also asserted that the Defendant No.8 had managed to get his name and the names of the Defendants 1st party recorded in the revisional survey settlement operation by filing Case No.90/2007 under Section 87 of the C.N.T. Act behind the back and knowledge of the plaintiffs. j. The plaintiffs further asserted that although the Defendants 1st party and the plaintiffs are living separately in mess, business and worship, but their properties were never partitioned and therefore, the order passed under Section 87 of the C.N.T. Act is void and illegal, and Defendant No.6 and 7 have got no right to purchase the entire Plot Nos.420 and 389 from the Defendants 1st party. 7. The Defendant Nos.1 to 5 and 8 had filed written statement, opposing the reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs and also asserting that Gondhu Kumhar had no son and he had died leaving behind his daughter Radhi Kumharin as his sole legal heir and successor. So, the plaintiffs have falsely inserted the name of Harkhu Kumhar as the son of Gondhu Kumhar. It was further asserted that the suit land originally belonged to the recorded tenant namely, Gondhu Kumhar and Saheb Ram Kumhar and there was partition between Gondhu Kumhar and Saheb Ram Kumhar in which the lands of some of the plots of Khata No.11 including Plot Nos.213, 389 and 420 i.e. Schedule-A land were allocated to Gondhu Kumhar who remained in possession and after his death, his daughter Radhi Kumharin became the owner of the property who died leaving behind four sons namely, Bhola Kumhar, Kamal Kumhar (died), Gour Kumhar and Bablu Kumhar and accordingly, each of four sons inherited 1/4th share in Schedule-A land and on death of Kamal Kumhar, his 1/4th share was inherited by his wife Mangoni Devi @ Kumharin (Defendant No.4) and one daughter Padda Kumharin (Defendant No.5). 2026:JHHC:2264 5 8. It was asserted that the Schedule-A land is jointly owned and possessed by the Defendant Nos.1 to 5 and except them, no other person has any right, title, interest over the Schedule-A land. 9. The Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 and other defendants had also filed their written statement contesting the suit. 10. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed by the Court for consideration; Issue No. I: Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? Issue No. II: Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Specific Relief Act? Issue No. III: Whether the plaintiffs have got unity of title and unity of possession with respect to the lands in suit i.e. proposed subject matter of partition? Issue No.III/A: Whether the plaintiff / plaintiffs are entitled for ½ share in the suit property? Issue No. IV: Whether the original plaintiff Amodi Kumharin (since deceased) had the locus-standi to file the present suit? Issue No.V: Whether Gondhu died leaving behind his daughter, heir and successor or not and if had no legal heir or successor, then the original plaintiff Amodi Kumharin had any right to file the present suit? Issue No. VI: Whether the suit land is available for partition at present or it had been already in possession of M/s. BCCL on which it is operating mining operation? Issue No. VII: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get any relief or reliefs or not? 11. The learned trial court after considering the materials recorded a finding that Amodi Kumharin, the plaintiff was the descendant of Gondhu Kumhar, who was the recorded raiyat. The findings have been recorded in Paragraph-15 of the trial court’s judgment which is as under:- “15. Considering the aforesaid facts and after going through the case record, I would like to deal with some important 2026:JHHC:2264 6 following points before reaching to the conclusion on Issue Nos. III, III/A, IV and V. (i) On perusal of Ext,B, which has been filed by the defendant nos.1 to 5, it transpires that order dated 05.12.2009, in which it is mentioned that the plots of Khata No.11 of Mouza No.112 are recorded in the name of Gondhu Kumhar and others as a raiyat, so Ext.B also supports Ext.10. From perusal of Ext.B, it further transpires that plot nos.389 and 402, which is the suit property is in the name of Gondhu Kumhar and others. This fact has also been admitted by the defendant nos.1 to 5 in para- 5 of the written statement. So there is admitted possession that the suit property belongs to Gondhu Kumhar. (ii) From perusal of Ext.4, which is registered deed of Gift No. 7860 of 10.09.1949, in which it is mentioned in recital as appears from the Hindi translation, submitted by the parties as follows : “pw¡fd nku i= nyhy dk fooj.k ;g gS fd f}rh; i{k nku xzgh=h] izFke i{k nkunkrk] nku nk=h dk iksrh gks jgS gS Jh Jh Hkxoku egk”k; ds vkf”kokZn ls izFke i{k dks dksbZ iq= ugha gS ;kuh izFke i{k dk nks yM+dh gS ,oa yM+dk dk LoxZokl gks x;k gSA ogh yM+dk dk 4 yM+dh vFkkZr izFke dk 4 pkSFkk iksrh gSA izFke i{k dk pkj iksrh es als af}rh; i{k nku xzgh=h dzs e/;ek iksrh gS oks izFke i{k dk ?kj es a clokl djds izFke i{k dk lalkfjd dk;Z ns[kHkky dj jgs gS a oks nku xzgh=h izFke i{k dk lsok ;Ru ds lkFk lsok Jq’klk djrs vk jgs gS a izFke i{k tc rd ftUnk jgsaxs rc rd mldk lsok Jq’klk djrs jgssaxsA” Ext.4/a, it is mention in recital as follows (Hindi translation): “pw¡fd+ nku i= nyhy dk fooj.k ;g gS fd f}rh; i{k nku xzfgrk] izFke i{k nkunkrk] nku nk=h dk Lusg dk yM+dk gks jgk gS Jh Jh Lo- Hkxoku egk”k; ds vkf”kokZn izFke i{k dks dksbZ iq= ugha gS ;kuh iFke i{k dk nks yM+dh gS ,oa yM+dk dk LoxZokl gks x;k gSA ogh yM+dk dk 4 yM+dh vFkkZr izFke dk 4 iksrh gSA izFke i{k dk yM+dh nks esa f}rh; i{k nku xzgh=h dk ts’B yM+dh gks jgk gS ,oa 2o i{k izFke i{k dk ?kj es a gh jgdj mldk lalkfjd dk;Z ns[kHkky dj jgs gSa oks izFke i{k dk vFkkZr mDr dqekj o lqfe;k dqekjhu dks Lusg HkfDr iwoZd lsok Jq’klk djrs vk jgs gS a izFke i{k tc rd ftUnk jgsaxsa rc rd mldk lslk Jq’klk djrs jgsaxsA” From perusal of recital of Ext.4, it transpires that Gondhu Kumhar has executed deed of gift in favour of his granddaughter Amodi Kumharin, the plaintiff. So Amodi Kumharin is granddaughter of recorded raiyat of Gondhu Kumhar as Gondhu Kumhar and his wife gifted the land of Khata no.11 together with other lands on 10.09.1949. This is the document of the year 1949 and registered deed of gift. No evidence has been brought by the defendant nos.1 to 5, so that this deed of gift is not valid and genuine. From perusal of registered sale deed no.5649 dated 04.05.1959 i.e. Ext.4/b, it transpires that Radhi Kumharin and Amodi Kumharin has sold the suit property gifted to them and the same was recorded raiyat as Gandhu Kumhar, which shows that the gift duly executed by donee and on that very gift deed land has been transferred. It is settled principle of law that the golden rule of construction, it has been said is to ascertain the 2026:JHHC:2264 7 intention of the parties to the instrument, after considering all the words, in their originally, natural meaning to ascertaining the intention the Court has to consider the relevant portion of the document as a whole and also taken into account the circumstances under which the particular words were used. From perusal of Ext.4 and 4/a, it transpires that Gondhu Kumhar has gifted some properties, who is granddaughter as he has no son. So from perusal of both the exhibits i.e. Ext.4/a and 4/b, it transpires that Amodi Kumharin is the descendants of Gondhu Kumhar, who is recorded raiyat. A witness can lie, but an old documents never lies. So the plaintiffs has been able to prove that she acquired the property of Gondhu Kumhar through gift as her granddaughter sold the same, so she is the heir of Gondhu Kumhar with respect to the suit property also. I am of the view that the defendant first party are the heirs of Radhi Kumharin and plaintiffs are the descendants of Gondhu Kumhar. (iii) On perusal of Ext.2 and 2/a, it transpire that the notices have been sent to Radhi Kumharin and Amodi Kumharin by L.A. Department for a same plot of Khata no.11. From perusal of Ext.3, it transpires that the payment has been made for the same plot of Khata no.11 to Radhi Kumharin and Amodi Kumharin by L.A. Case No.24/81-82. But it is contended by the defendant first party that Amodi Kumharin has fraudulently received payment from the L.A. Department for the lands of Gondhu Kumhar. But since from 1981-82, no case has been filed by the defendant first party to suggests this court that any compensation has been received by Amodi Kumharin fraudulently against law and rule. From perusal of Ext.1/a, it also transpires that Amodi Kumharin is paying rent with regard to Khata No.11 land recorded in the name of Gondhu Kumhar from several years, which also prima facie shows that the plaintiffs have interest in the suit property. (iv) The defendant first party i.e. the defendant nos.1 to 5 and 8 are contesting the case mainly only on the basis of Ext.B, C and D and on perusal of these documents, it transpires that the orders were passed on genealogy issued by C.O. Jharia i.e. Ext.D on 26.04.2010, but the said genealogy certificate was subsequently cancelled by the Anchal Adhikari, Jharia vide memo no. 692 dated 29.12.2016, mentioning as follows: “,rn }kjk lacaf/kr i{kdkj lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd mik;qDr ds fo”ks’k dk;Z inkf/kdkjh xks0 “kk[kk ds i=kad&1338@xks0 fnukad 28&10&2016 ds vkns”k ds vkyksd esa xgu tkWpksijkar oa”kkoyh izek.k i= la0&317 fnukad 26&04&2010 dks jnn fdlk tkrk gSA” From perusal of Ext.9 it transpires that on the direction of D.C., the direction has been given to initiate proceeding against the employee, who was responsible for issuing false 2026:JHHC:2264 8 genealogy certificate, on the basis of which order has been taken by the defendant first party. It is mentioned in the application, which is as follows : “mi;qZDr fo"k;d vius izklafxd i= dk funs'k djsaA vkils izkIr izfrosnu ls fofnr gksrk gS fd izlkaxk/khu oa'kkoyh =qVhiw.kZ gS rFkk bl laca/k esa lekgrkZ] /kuckn ds U;k;ky; esa lh0,u0Vh0 okn la0&06@2010 Jh HkksykukFk ikWy ¼dqEgkj½ ,oa vU; ouke Hkkjr dksfdax dksy fyfeVsM esa rr~dkyhu vapy vf/kdkjh] >fj;k }kjjk i= la0&06] fnukad 14-01-2011 }kjk lefiZr izfrosnu okLrfod rF;ksa ls fHkUu gSA bl lUnHkZ esa mik;qDr egksn; }kjk =qfViw.kZ oa'kkoyh dks jn~n djus rFkk xyr oa'kkoyh fuxZr djus rFkk lekgrkZ] /kuckn ds U;k;ky; esa xyr izfrosnu lefiZr djusokys nks"kh inkf/kdkjh ,oa deZpkjh dks fpfUgr dj lk{; lfgr muds fo:) izi= ^d* esa vkjksi xfBr dj Hkstus dk funs'k fn;k x;k gSA funs'kkuqlkj dguk gS fd mik;qDr egksn; ds funs'k ds vkyksd esa rojhr dkjZokbZ lqfuf'pr djus dh d`ik djs aA” On perusal of Ext.8 and 9, it transpires that the copy of the same has been sent to the defendant first party also, but the defendant first party has not informed to this court, which shows the malafide intention of the defendant first party. So any order obtained on the basis of forged or fabricated documents is itself illegal and void. (v) On perusal of case record and the evidences brought by the parties, there is nothing to show that the suit property was exclusively fallen in the share of defendant first party in any partition or in any family arrangement. After thoroughly scrutinizing the evidences brought by the parties, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff is descendants of recorded raiyat Gondhu Kumhar, so they are entitled to inherit the suit property. They have share in the suit property and the defendants first party were also entitled for the share of the property. The defendants have not filed and exhibited any relevant and cogent documents to falsify the genealogy given by the plaintiffs. It is well settled that when a case of the parties is based on genealogy consisting of link, it is incumbent upon the party to prove every link thereof. In present case in hand, the plaintiffs have produced oral and documentary evidences to show that she is one of the descendants of Gondhu Kumhar, which has been well established by the evidences adduced in this case on behalf of plaintiffs. The evidences are not going to hit by doctrine post litum mortem. (vi) The learned lawyer of the defendants first party has argued that the documents filed and exhibited by the plaintiffs have not been mentioned in the pleading. So evidence brought by the plaintiffs are beyond pleading. But I am of the considered view that the documents filed and exhibited by the plaintiffs is filed and exhibited to prove the assertion of the plaint. As per rule every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved.” 2026:JHHC:2264 9 12. The learned trial court decided the Issue Nos. III, III/A, IV and V in favour of the plaintiffs and against the Defendants first party i.e. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 and 8. 13. The learned trial court considered the gift deed dated 10.09.1949 and recorded that the defendants 1st party (Defendant Nos. 1 to 5) and Defendant No.8 were contesting the case mainly on the basis of Exhibits- B, C and D and recorded that the orders were passed on the genealogy issued by Circle Officer Jharia i.e. Exhibit-D on 26.04.2010, but the genealogy certificate was subsequently cancelled by the Anchal Adhikari, Jharia vide Memo No. 692 dated 29.12.2016. 14. The learned trial court also considered Exhibit-9 which transpires that the Deputy Commissioner gave direction to initiate proceeding against the employee who was responsible for issuing false genealogy certificate and the said document was also sent to the defendants 1st party, but the defendants 1st party had not informed the learned trial court. The learned trial court observed that any order obtained on the basis of forged or fabricated documents is itself illegal and void. The learned trial court further held at Paragraph- 15(v) and 15(vi) that there was nothing to show that the suit property was exclusively fallen in the share of defendants 1st party in any partition or in any family arrangement. 15. The learned trial court also decided the Issue No.VI in favour of the plaintiffs recording the findings that this is a suit for partition simply and not for deciding the compensation amount. With regard to Issue Nos. I and VII, the learned trial court held that the suit as filed and framed by the plaintiffs is maintainable in the present form and the plaintiffs are entitled for only relief as discussed above. Accordingly, the learned trial court decreed the suit on contest and held that the plaintiffs are entitled ½ share with regard to the property mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint only and the Defendant Nos.1 to 5, defendant 1st party, are also entitled for ½ share in Schedule-A property, except the Defendant Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9. 16. The learned 1st appellate court framed only one point for determination: 2026:JHHC:2264 10 “Pont No.1: Are the plaintiffs/respondents entitled for half share in the suit property and whether Amodi Kumharin was legal heir and successor of Gondhu Kumhar?” 17. The learned 1st appellate court recorded concurrent findings and held that the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled for half share in the suit property and Amodi Kumharin was legal heir and successor of Gondhu Kumhar and decided the Point for Determination No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and upheld the Judgement and Decree passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. 18. This Court is of the view that the arguments of the appellant that order passed under Section 87 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act was binding on the plaintiffs is ex-facie misconceived inasmuch as the plaintiffs were not a party in the said proceeding. 19. Further, in the judgement passed by full bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Paritosh Maity and etc. v. Ghasiram Maity and another reported in 1986 SCC OnLine Pat 243, the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking partition was not barred. In the said judgement the effect of section 87 of the C.N.T Act and section 258 of the C.N.T Act which deals with bar to file civil suit has been considered and it has been held as follows: - “16. The true legal effect of a harmonious reading of Ss. 87 and 258 may, therefore, be noticed. Chapter XII provides for the record of rights and S. 83 therein deals with the preliminary publication, the amendment and the final publication of the record of rights, whilst S. 84 creates certain rebuttable presumptions in favour of the correctness of the entries in the record of rights. However, S. 87 provides a remedy by way of a suit before the Revenue Officer for resolving any dispute with regard to such an entry in the record of rights or an omission therefrom. In essence, such a suit is thus directed as a challenge to the entry or omission in such a record, but S. 87 further provides that this can be raised even where such a dispute be with regard to matters specified in Cls. (a) to (f) of S. 87. In a way, therefore, S. 87 provides a special and additional remedy pertaining to entries in the revenue records as soon as they are finally published and certified. That is why the Legislature has chosen to provide a narrow limitation of three months from the date of 2026:JHHC:2264 11 the certificate of the final publication of the record of rights for bringing such a suit. To my mind, this remedy is not in any way in derogation of the civil rights of the parties, but indeed is a special and additional remedy which may be availed of within a limited period of three months, if a party feels aggrieved by any of the entries in the record of rights. However, if such a remedy is availed of by the parties then the statute now provides an appeal and even a second appeal to the High Court itself in the very forum of sub-s. (2), S. 87 which inevitably would achieve finality. Thus, if actual resort has been made to a suit under S. 87 then for an identical lis S. 258 would bar a further resort to the Civil Courts except on the grounds of fraud or want of jurisdiction. Obviously enough, to bring in even this limited bar, the lis would have to be identical. However, as already noticed and it bears repetition that if no resort has been earlier made to a suit under S. 87 by the parties, the very precondition for the application of S. 258 would be absent and it cannot come into play in such a situation.” 20. Consequently, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit itself was barred is misplaced. 21. This Court finds that no question of law, much less any substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed. 22. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 23. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned courts through “Fax/E-mail”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 28.01.2026 Rakesh/- Uploaded On:-20th March, 2026