SURTI AND ORS. Vs. SANJHALA MANJHI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING order dated 03.06.2014 whereby petition dated 03.05.2014 filed by the defendants in P.S. No. 124 of 2010 has been rejected, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, P.S. No. 124 of 2010 was filed seeking a decree of partition claiming 3/4th share in Schedule "B" property. The claim of the plaintiffs is for the land comprised in Khata No. 78 consisted of 17 plots, total area 10.76 acres recorded in the name of Mangar Manjhi, Hopan Manjhi, Chunu Mandjhi and Manjhiya Manjhi. It is stated that during their lifetime the ancestors of the recorded tenants were joint for all purposes and after the death of their ancestors, the plaintiffs came in possession over the Schedule "B" land. The defendants appeared in the Partition Suit and filed written statement on 05.10.2010. Thereafter, the defendants filed documents on 12.07.2011. After the plaintiffs closed their evidence, application dated 03.05.2014 was filed seeking leave of the court for bringing a Hukumnama and rent receipts on record of P.S. No. 124 of 2010. As noticed above, the said application has been dismissed vide order dated 03.06.2014. Aggrieved the petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in the written statement a specific case has been set up by the defendants that the land comprised in G.M. Plot No. 625 under old cadastral survey Khata No. 94 in village Bali was settled in favour of one Mangar Manjhi by the ex -landlord and the said Mangar Manjhi came in possession over the same. After filing the written statement, the petitioners left the Hukumnama and the rent receipts in the office of the advocate namely, M.I. Jabery and they could not collect it however, after the plaintiffs' evidence was closed, the defendants realised their mistake and accordingly, application dated 03.05.2014 was filed. Relying on the decisions in "Narain Prasad Aggarwal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh" reported in : (2007) 11 SCC 736 and "Ganesh Sahu Vs. Dwarika Sao" reported in : AIR 1991 (Pat) 1, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, whenever issue as to lack of pleadings is raised it is not the form of pleadings, rather the substance of pleading, which has to be seen. It has been held that the pleadings should not be construed in a narrow manner rather, a liberal approach should be adopted by the court. The learned counsel for the petitioners refers to judgment in "Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and Another" reported in : (2001) 3 SCC 1 to submits that, the admissibility, genuineness and relevancy of a document can be tested at the final hearing and at this stage when the defendants are yet to lead evidence, they should not be precluded from bringing on record a document which would be necessary for deciding the issue involved in P.S. No. 124 of 2010.