1 2026:CGHC:6368 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 538 of 2023 1 - Brij Mohan Katare S/o Kundan Lal Katare Aged About 31 Years R/o Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Purushottam Katare S/o Kundan Lal Katare Aged About 24 Years R/o Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) --- Petitioners versus 1 - Laxmi Bai Katare D/o Kundan Lal Katare Aged About 45 Years R/o Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Saroj Katare D/o Kundan Lal Katare Aged About 42 Years R/o Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Ramla Katare D/o Kundan Lal Katare Aged About 38 Years R/o Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Chitralekha D/o Kundan Lal Katare Aged About 33 Years R/o Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 5 - Kejal Bai W/o Kundan Lal Katare Aged About 65 Years R/o Lal Bahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 6 - Madan Singh S/o Ghanaram Teli Aged About 55 Years R/o Near Sent Mare School, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) --- Respondents 2 {Cause title, as taken from Case Information System} For Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 6 For Respondent No.7 : : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate. Mr. Rohitashava Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate. {Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput} Order on Board 04/02/2026 1. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 27.06.2023 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar, whereby the application preferred by defendant No. 6 namely Madan Singh under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth, CPC) was allowed. 2. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioners/plaintiffs, are that the petitioners/plaintiffs have instituted civil suit for declaration of title, possession and for permanent injunction in respect of the land bearing Khasra No. 526/13, renumbered as Khasra No. 70/2, area 1872 sq.ft.. situated at village Patpar, Patwari Halka No. 7/10, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). Written statement on behalf of the respondent No. 6-defendant No. 6 has also been filed. Evidence of the plaintiffs was also recorded and the case was fixed for recording defendants' evidence. At that time, respondent No. 6/defendant No. 6 filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) of CPC (Annexure P-4), for taking documents on record, and intended to file documents, which includes a registered sale-deed dated 06.03.1973 & 18.04.1973, revenue records in the name of Ghanaram B-1 year 1999-2000, Khasra of the year 2000-2001, B-1 1999-2000 in the name of Madan Singh, patwari map of the suit land and certified copy of the order dated 24.10.2000 passed by Tahsildar, B-1 and Khasra Panchshala of the Year 2022-23 and original Rin Pustika of respondent No. 6 / defendant No. 6 and 3 original receipt of taxes paid. 2.1 The petitioners/plaintiffs has resisted the aforesaid application inter alia pleading that there are forged and fabricated documents filed along with this application, which is a criminal act, therefore, respondent No. 6 / defendant No. 6 may be proceeded under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.. 3. Learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Bhatapara (C.G.), vide impugned order dated 27.06.2023, allowed the aforesaid application and the documents filed alongwith this application are directed to be taken on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the alleged documents ought to have been filed at the time of filing of written statement, no adequate reasons have been assigned as to why those documents could not be filed at the time of filing of written statement. Since no proper & adequate reasons have been assigned for not filing the alleged documents right in time, therefore, the trial Court has erred in allowing the application under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) of the CPC, for taking additional documents on record, which is required to be interfered with by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sugandhi (dead) by legal representatives and another vs. P. Rajkumar represented by His Power Agent Imam Oli 1 and the judgment passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in the case of Dr. Ravindra Jain vs.Deepak Pradhan 2 , in support of his submission. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the dispute is between plaintiffs and defendant No. 6. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 would submit that certain documents were filed alongwith application under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) of the CPC and the documents, which are being filed along with the application was necessary for adjudication of real controversy between the petitioners/plaintiffs and defendant No. 6. It is next contended that after considering the arguments 1 (2020) 10 SCC 706 2 Misc. Petition No. 2206 of 2023, decided on 18.07.2025 4 advanced on behalf of the parties, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) of the CPC, which does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that while allowing the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) of the CPC, learned trial Court found that the photo-copies of the documents were not presented at the time of filing of written statement. The original documents, as per list, were submitted alongwith application under Order 8 Rule 1 (A)(3) of the CPC. Only a certified copy of the order passed by learned Tahsildar, Bhatapara dated 24.10.2000 was filed. Learned trial Court also found that as to whether there is interpolation in the documents or it is a fabricated one, is a matter of evidence and for which, plaintiffs’ counsel would be given proper opportunity to cross-examine the defendants’ witnesses and upon which it could be clarify, as to whether the documents presented are admissible in evidence or not. It has further been observed that if any interpolation is made in documents filed in the court, utilized by defendant No. 6, it would be too early to proceed against him under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., particularly when the defendants’ evidence has not commenced. Learned trial Court has also observed that the documents, which have been presented, appears to be necessary for adjudication of the case in hand. It has further been observed that during the course of recording evidence, if it is found that some interpolation or fabrication has been made by defendant No. 6, then, the trial Court can on its self-conscience can pass the order initiating criminal proceedings against the respondent No. 6, thus, allowed the application filed by defendant No. 6 and the documents filed therewith are taken on record. 9. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no adequate reasons have been assigned in the application and for that purpose, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the afore-cited cases. 5 10. Perusal of the application would clearly go to show that respondent No. 6 /defendant No. 6 has stated that documents are necessary for deciding the issues involved in the civil suit. The documents filed alongwith application filed by defendant No. 6 under Order 8 Rule 1 (A)(3) of the CPC are necessary for proper adjudication of the civil suit and by accepting the documents in the case so filed, it appears that neither it would change the nature of suit nor any prejudice would be caused to the parties. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sangram Singh Versus Election Tribunal, Kotah 3 held that “it is “procedure”, something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends: not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against.” 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sushil Kumar Sen Versus State of Bihar 4 has held that “morality of justice at the hands of law troubles a judge’s conscience and points an angry interrogation at the law reformer. The processual law so dominates in certain systems as to overpower substantive rights and substantial justice. The humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a residuary power in judges to act ex debito justitiae where the tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable.” 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab Versus Shamlal Murari 5 held that “processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice.” 14. Looking to the controversy involved in the instant writ petition, the finding recorded by the learned Civil Court the documents are necessary for adjudication 3 AIR 1955 SC 425 4 (1975) 1 SCC 774 5 (1976) 1 SCC 719 6 of the case on merits and the plaintiffs are at liberty to cross-examine the respondent No. 6/defendant No. 6 and only, thereafter, the admissibility of the documents so filed can be determined. Thus, the finding so recorded by learned Civil Judge appears to be based on proper appreciation of facts & circumstances of the case. 15. Taking guidance of above quoted authorities, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned orderallowing the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) of the CPC. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.02.10 18:52:39 +0530