RAMAGYA PANDIT Vs. SHANKAR PANDIT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Uma Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 18.03.2017 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-IV, Motihari, East Champaran in Title Suit No. 71 of 2009, as contained in Annexure-2 to this application, whereby he has rejected the petition dated 06.03.2017 filed by the petitioner for calling the original records of Jamabandi of the suit property from the Bettiah Raj for the purpose of marking the same as exhibit.

(3.) Mr. Uma Kant Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial court erred in law while passing the impugned order dated 18.03.2017. It also failed to appreciate that Jamabandi records would be the most important document for deciding the claim of the parties inasmuch as the claim of the petitioner that after settlement of the suit property in favor of his ancestor Ramsharan Kumhar @ Ramsharan Pandit Jamabandi was created in his name and rent receipt was also issued was denied by the respondents, who claimed that no such Jamabandi was created. He contended that in view of the nature of dispute, the Jamabandi record is essential for just adjudication of the present suit.