AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned court of Sub Judge-II, Ranchi by the impugned order dated 23.11.2016 (Annexure-1) has refused to allow the panchayati settlement dated 7.6.2009 to be adduced as evidence though it allowed several other documents to be exhibited such as certified copy of order dated 2.11.2010 passed in Mutation Appeal no.
92R/27/08-09 and 93 R-15/08-09; correction slip of Mutation case no.
3489 R/27/09-2010, 3991 R/27/09-2010 and 3492 R/27/09-2010 as also rent receipt issued in the name of proforma Respondents.
However, the panchayati settlement dated 7.6.2009 was declined apparently on the ground that it was not a public document.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said document may not be a public document but if it is genuine document and relevant to the issue in controversy, plaintiff should have been allowed to adduce the same. However on being specifically put, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that plaint or pleadings on record do not refer to any such panchayati settlement. In that case the document of panchayati settlement sought to be adduced may not relate directly to the averments or the case set up by the Plaintiff. However, it is a part of failed compromise between the parties, which may have relevance to the issue in controversy i.e. Issue no. 5 i.e. " Whether the three registered sale deeds no. 13199, 13201 and 13202 dated 7.9.2006 are liable to be cancelled or set aside being fraudulent and without consideration?"
Status report was called for from the learned Trial Court on the previous date. The case history up-till now has been submitted in the form of a chart. From perusal thereof it is evident that evidence of plaintiff was closed on 6.9.2012 while that of Defendant No.1 was closed on 19.9.2014. The case has been put up for argument of Plaintiff, whereafter such leave petition was filed. The panchayati settlement sought to be adduced is dated 7.6.2009, which is of a date anterior to the Title Suit No. 340 of 2008. Therefore, there is no reason why reference to the panchayati settlement should not have been made in the averments in the plaint at the time of its institution or any amendment in the plaint should not have been sought for before the case has proceeded to such an advanced stage of trial.
Though the reason of the learned Trial Court may not be appropriate but upon consideration of the entire facts on record, this Court does not find that the Plaintiff/ Petitioner has made out a case for adducing panchayati settlement as evidence at such stage of trial.
In that view of the matter, interference in the case is declined.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.