IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10992 of 2010 PANNALAL GUPTA, S/O LATE JAMADAR SAH, R/O MOHALLA- BHIRKHI UTTARBADI, WARD NO. 16, P.O.+P.S.- MADHEPURA, DISTT.- MADHEPURA. ……..PETITIONER. Versus 1. SMT. KAUSHALYA DEVI W/O LATE BASHISTHA PRASAD SINHA R 2. SANTOSH SINHA S/O LATE BASHISTHA PRASAD SINHA 3. SATISH SINHA S/O LATE BASHISTHA PRASAD SINHA 4. ASHOK PRASAD SINHA S/O LATE SHARDA SINHA 5. ARUN SINHA @ MUNNA S/O LATE SHARDA SINHA 6. VALMIKI PRASAD SINHA S/O LATE SHARDA SINHA All R/O MOHALLA- BHIRKHI UTTARBADI, WARD NO. 16, P.O.+P.S.- MADHEPURA, DISTT.- MADHEPURA, BIHAR. …….RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : None. --------- 03/ 08.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 20.04.2010 (Annexure-6) passed in Title Suit No.89 of 2001 by which Civil Judge, Junior Division, Madhepura allowed the application dated 18.03.2008 filed by the defendants-respondents for admitting the Panchnama as an exhibit, after recalling the earlier order dated 09.07.2007 passed in the said suit by which the evidence of the defendants were ordered to be closed. According to the petitioner, the suit is running for final arguments. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the petitioner for a declaration that the suit land was his purchased land and he has left it for his own Rasta and the defendants had no manner of right or claim over the same. In the said suit, the defendants appeared and - 2 - contested, whereafter issues were framed and evidences were led and finally the evidence of the parties was closed on 09.07.2007 by the order of the court below. 4. In the aforesaid case, a pleader commissioner was appointed who submitted his report which was made an exhibit and the pleader commissioner was also examined as a witness. However, the defendants filed the aforesaid application dated 02.07.2008 for marking as exhibit a panchnama which was prepared against the measurement made by the survey knowing pleader commissioner who had submitted his report. Subsequently, an application was also filed on 18.03.2010 by the defendants for recall of order dated 09.07.2007 for the said purposes. The said prayer of the defendants has been allowed by the court below by its impugned order dated 20.04.2010 (Annexure-6). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when the evidence was closed and the suit was running for final arguments, there was no occasion for admitting any document as an exhibit. He further stated that the report of the pleader commissioner had been produced and had also been proved by the pleader commissioner who appeared as a witness and was cross- examined by the defendants. He also argued that by the impugned order the court below has cursorily allowed the application of the defendants, although the law is well settled by a bench of this court in case of Parsuram Dubey Versus Mahanth Laxman Das & others, reported in 1974 P.L.J.R.276 that the validity of the evidence - 3 - sought to be brought on record had to be considered by the trial court. 6. So far the aforesaid decision is concerned, it is quite apparent that the court has to, prima facie, see the validity of the document sought to be brought on record. The learned court below has prima facie considered it. Furthermore, the effect of the panchnama on the report of the pleader commissioner cannot be finally decided at this stage as it has to be considered at the time of final decision of the case. Hence, there was no occasion for the court below to go in detail about the validity or otherwise of the panchnama or of the report of the pleader commissioner. 7. Furthermore, the report of the pleader commissioner is merely a piece of evidence which can be legally contradicted by another piece of evidence and when such an evidence has come on record it was appropriate for the court below to bring it on record for full and final adjudication of the suit. Moreover, the suit is merely running for final argument and hence the court below was quite justified in passing the impugned order. However, plaintiff- petitioner will be at liberty to produce evidence in rebuttal of the aforesaid panchnama after the same is formally proved by the defendants-respondents. 8. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below and accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. However, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner appears bonafidely concerned - 4 - due to the delay caused in the disposal of the suit. Hence, the learned court below is directed to take immediate steps without giving any undue adjournment to any of the parties so that the suit may be finally disposed of within six months from the date of receipt a copy of this order. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)