RANCHI, India, Nov. 30 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 30:

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners.

1. The instant CMP has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure-8) passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-VI, Deoghar in Original Suit No.109 of 2008 in which the petition dated 19.05.2025 filed by defendant Nos.4 to 8 had been allowed and certified copy of gift deed has been permitted to be adduced into evidence and marked as exhibits.

2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in Original Suit No.109 of 2008 which has been filed for getting share in the suit property and for demarcation of share by appointment of Pleader Commissioner and a further prayer has been made for delivery of possession.

3. The challenge to the impugned order is on the ground that earlier vide order dated 08.04.2025, a similar petition filed under Order VIII Rule 1A read with Section 151 CPC by defendant Nos.4 to 8 was allowed by the learned Trial Court by stating that the gift deed is not a public document and the same cannot be marked as Ext. Subsequently, another petition was filed by the same set of defendants on change of Presiding Officer, which was barred by res-judicata, but has been allowed by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that once the petition under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC was allowed being gift deed not being public document and cannot be exhibited therefore, it was impermissible on the part of the subsequent Presiding Officer, to have entertained the same petition.

5. It is secondly argued that no cogent reason has been assigned with regard to due diligence and documents having not been filed or referred to at the time of filing of written statement.

6. Written statement was filed on 24.01.2009, whereas the petition for adducing into evidence the certified copy of the gift deed has been filed on 19.05.2025.

7. It is further argued that the certified copy was secondary evidence and could not have been adduced into evidence, without accounting for original deed of gift which was a primary evidence in terms of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. It is also argued that it is not a genuine certified copy as it does not mention the book number, volume number, index number as well as page number.

8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, the matter for consideration before this Court is whether there is sufficient ground for interfering with the impugned order in exercise of extra-ordinary power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?

9. Issues that have been raised are specifically in two folds. The first is about the stage on which the certified copy of the gift deed has been adduced into evidence and the second is the mode of its proof.

10. So far as the objection regarding the mode of proof is concerned, it is devoid of much substance for the reason that the registered gift deed is of the year 1992 when the contents of the instrument of registered gift deed used to be entered in register maintained by the Registry Office. The certified copy of the said documents was issued in terms of Section 57 (5) of the Registration Act which provides that the certified copy will be the true copy of its original.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x2ZeNLLPSdddWfICrwpxi3ZF%2FKx%2BG3kHRg1D%2BnItMNj0&caseno=C.M.P./911/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010289442025&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.