[2026:JHHC:25462] 1 C. M.P. No.406 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.406 of 2025 ------ Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Registered Divisional Office, at, 1st Floor, Smriti Building, beside Maharashtra Mandal, Bistupur, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, town Jamshedpur, District- Singhbhum East, 831001 represented through its duly authorized signatory being Se. Legal Executive, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. 501, 502 5th Floor, Pranami Heights, Circular Road, near Lalpur Chowk, P.O. & P.S.- Lalpur, Ranchi, 834001. … Petitioners. Versus 1. Ruby Prasad, w/o Late Bimal Kishore Prasad; 2. Vartika Jasmine, d/o Late Bimal Kishore Prasad 3. Rishi Raj, s/o Late Bimal Kishore Prasad 4. Aadish Raj, s/o Late Bimal Kishore Prasad Respondent nos. 3 and 4 are minors and thus represented through their mother and natural guardian being respondent no.1 (Ruby Prasad) herein. All residents of Mangal Deep, Gurudwara Basti, Near Sakchi Gurudwara, P.O. & P.S.- Sakchi, Town:- Jamshedpur, District- Singhbhum East. 5. Shiv Narayan Bhagat, s/o Lachuman Bhagat, Resident of Road No. 15, Shiv Mandir, Near Gas Godam, Samta Nagar, P.O. Azadnagar, P.S. Mango Jamshedpur, District- Singhbhum East. (Owner of Hero Honda Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. JH- 05AV-3553) … Opposite Parties ------ [2026:JHHC:25462] 2 C. M.P. No.406 of 2025 For the Petitioner :Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Vishwajeet Chaturvedi, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- I.A. No.10693 of 2026 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed for early hearing of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition. Since this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is taken up today, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) C.M.P. No.406 of 2025 Heard the parties. 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to set aside the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by Additional District Judge-VII -Cum- MACT, Jamshedpur in M.C.A. No. 36 of 2025 arising out of M.A.C. Case No. 65 of 2020 whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal has rejected the petition dated 06.02.2025 filed under Order XVI Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner herein, who is the opposite party no.1 in the said M.A.C. Case No. 65 of 2020, filed a [2026:JHHC:25462] 3 C. M.P. No.406 of 2025 petition to summon Principal Commissioner of the Income Tax Jamshedpur to produce the income tax returns of the deceased, the description of whom has not been mentioned in the petition dated 06.02.2025. The same was objected to by the opposite parties herein on the ground that the prayer to issue summon to Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamshedpur is unnecessary and uncalled for and just a delaying tactic to deprive claimants of their entitlement of compensation. The learned Additional District Judge-VII, Jamshedpur considered that the M.A.C.T case No. 65 of 2020 was filed in connection with the accident took place on 17.09.2019 in respect of the death of Bimal Kishore Prasad in an accident. The case was instituted on 16.06.2020, the evidence of the claimants has been closed on 20.11.2024. On 23.12.2024 by filing a petition, the opposite party no.1 of the claim case, filed an application to issue notice to the D.T.O., Jamshedpur to bring the relevant records, which was rejected and last chance was given on 06.02.2025 for evidence of opposite party, but instead of producing any witness, this petition has been filed. It is next submitted that the original copy of the income tax returns have been brought on record as exhibit A-1 to A-13 and A23 to A27 and though the concerned witness being the C.W.-3 has been cross-examined at length, but the genuineness of the said document was not challenged in the cross-examination of the C.W.-3, not even a single question was put to C.W.3 in respect of the documents and [2026:JHHC:25462] 4 C. M.P. No.406 of 2025 by thus considering the conduct of the petitioner herein of filing unnecessary petitions causing delay in the disposal of the claim of the application, rejected the petitioner to issue summons to the Principal Commissioner, Income Tax, Jamshedpur with cost of Rs.2,000/-. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition of the petitioner has been arbitrarily and illegally rejected by the impugned order dated 12.02.2025. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that since the documents sought for has already been in the records and have been marked as exhibits without objection and even not a single question was put to the witness who proved such documents, so the filing of the petition on the part of the opposite party was unnecessary and uncalled for and therefore, the learned Additional District Judge-VII, Jamshedpur has committed no illegality in passing the impugned order. It is therefore submitted that this Civil Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact is that the summons sought to be issued to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamshedpur is to [2026:JHHC:25462] 5 C. M.P. No.406 of 2025 produce the certain income tax returns of the deceased; which are already in the record and have been marked as exhibit- A1 to A13, A23 to A27 on being proved by the C.W.3 but not a single question regarding the same has been put by the petitioners herein; who is the opposite party no.1 of the claim application. Therefore, certainly the petition filed by the petitioner to again call for the said documents was unnecessary and uncalled for and has rightly been rejected by the learned Additional District Judge, VII, Jamshedpur. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no rhyme or reason to accede with the prayer of the petitioner made in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, this C.M.P. is being without merit is dismissed. 8. In view of the disposal of this C.M.P, pending I.A., if any is disposed of being infructuous. 9. Let the copy of the L.C.R., be sent back to the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 24th August, 2026 AFR/ Amar Uploaded on-25/08/2026