Patna High Court
Raihana Khatoon vs Surendra Prasad Choudhary on 22 April, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.213 of 2024
======================================================
1. Raihana Khatoon Wife of Late Md. Wasim, resident of Bari Haweli, Saguna
Mainpura, P.O.-Danapur, P.S.-Danapur, District-Patna-801503.
2. Nahid Salima, D/o Late Md. Wasim, resident of Bari Haweli, Saguna
Mainpura, P.O.-Danapur, P.S.-Danapur, District-Patna-801503.
3. Viquar Azim, Son of Late Md. Wasim, resident of Bari Haweli, Saguna
Mainpura, P.O.-Danapur, P.S.-Danapur, District-Patna-801503.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Surendra Prasad Choudhary son of Late Payare Lal Choudhary, resident of
Rajghat Nawada, P.S. Punpun, District Patna.
2. Krishna Kumar Choudhary, son of Late Payare Lal Choudhary, resident of
Rajghat Nawada, P.S. Punpun, District Patna.
3. Hira Lal Choudhary, son of Late Payare Lal Choudhary, resident of Rajghat
Nawada, P.S. Punpun, District Patna.
4. Mahesh Kumar Choudhary, son of Late Payare Lal Choudhary, resident of
Rajghat Nawada, P.S. Punpun, District Patna.
6. Kishori Choudhary, son of Late Dulare Choudhary, resident of Rajghat
Nawada, P.S. Punpun, District Patna.
7. Sukhari Choudhary, son of Late Dulare Choudhary, resident of Rajghat
Nawada, P.S. Punpun, District Patna.
8. Basant Choudhary, son of Late Dulare Choudhary, resident of Rajghat
Nawada, P.S. Punpun, District Patna.
9. Ganga Bishnu Choudhary, son of Late Dulare Choudhary, resident of
Rajghat Nawada, P.S. Punpun, District Patna.
11. Jitendra Choudhary, son of Late Karmu Choudhary, resident of Rajghat
Nawada, P.S. Punpun, District Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anisur Rahman, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kundan Prasad Singh, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Mani, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-04-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
learned counsel for the respondents.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.213 of 2024 dt.22-04-2025
2/8
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated
27.01.2024
passed by learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge-1st, Danapur in Title Appeal No. 21 of 1999 whereby and
whereunder the petition dated 11.12.2023 and 17.01.2024 filed
by the petitioner (wrongly mentioned as respondent by the
petitioners in paragraph no.1 of the petition) for making an
inquiry regarding interpolation in order-sheet dated 21.07.2014
was rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
bare perusal of order-sheet dated 21.07.2014 passed in Title
Appeal No. 21 of 1999 shows that above the date ‘13.09.13’ in
2nd line, date ‘03.09.13’ has been added and thereafter in 4 th line
above the word ‘Pyarelal Choudhary’, word ‘Dulare Choudhary’
has been added. Similarly, again in 6th line above the date
‘28.07.13’, date ‘03.09.13’ has been added. Again the word
‘Dulare Choudhary’ was added in the last line of the running
order-sheet after the word ‘Prayelal Choudhary’. Further, on the
next page of the order-sheet, prior to word ‘Pyarelal
Choudhary’, word ‘Dulare Choudhary’ has been added in the 4th
line. Learned counsel further submits that Prayelal Choudhary
died on 28.07.2013 and Dulare Choudhary died on 03.09.2013.
Learned counsel further submits that there has been no
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.213 of 2024 dt.22-04-2025
3/8
application dated 03.09.2013 filed for substitution of either
Dulare Choudhary or Prayelal Choudhary and only application
was filed for substitution of Pyarelal Choudhary on 13.09.2013.
So it is apparent that the order dated 21.07.2014 has been
interpolated and the name of Dulare Choudhary has been added
at different places. Learned counsel further submits that no
petition was filed on 03.09.2013 and the case was not fixed on
that date and no order-sheet mentions about the petition dated
03.09.2013. Perusal of order-sheet dated 21.07.2014 shows
interpolation was done in five places in the order-sheet. Learned
counsel further submits that when the rejoinder was filed, the
contention of the petitioners was not replied by the respondents
as they did not file any rejoinder to controvert the statement of
the petitioners. If the interpolation in the order-sheet dated
21.07.2014 remain unexplained, it would amount to committing
fraud in the judicial proceeding on record. But the learned 1 st
appellate court did not take into consideration this fact and
rejected the application filed by the petitioners merely on the
ground that the entries were made in same ink and pen and the
petitioners approached the court pointing out this fact after nine
years. Learned counsel refers to a decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.213 of 2024 dt.22-04-2025
4/8
And Ors., reported in (2003) 8 SCC 319 wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that commission of fraud on court and
suppression of material facts are the core issues involved and
further held that fraud as is well-known vitiates every solemn
act. Fraud and justice never dwells together. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed that an act of fraud on court is always
viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to
deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would
render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are
synonymous. Learned counsel thus submits that the
respondents, in order to derive some benefits, came in collusion
with court officials and got interpolation done in the order-sheet
and the learned 1st appellate court ought to have taken this fact
into consideration and ordered for an inquiry and, hence, the
impugned order is not sustainable.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents vehemently contends that there is no interpolation
made in the order-sheet dated 21.07.2014 and the petitioners
have filed the present petition only to delay the disposal of Title
Appeal No. 21 of 1999. Learned counsel further submits that
Pyarelal Choudhary died on 28.07.2013 and the application for
his substitution was filed on 13.09.2013. Dulare Choudhary died
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.213 of 2024 dt.22-04-2025
5/8
on 03.09.2013 and application for his substitution was filed on
19.12.2013. An application under Section 5 read with Article
121 of the Limitation Act was filed on 08.07.2014 in
continuation with their petition dated 19.12.2013. Learned
counsel thus submits that prior to passing of the order dated
21.07.2014, the petitions of the respondents were already on
record and there was no occasion for the respondents to derive
any benefit from interpolation being made in the order dated
21.07.2014. Learned counsel further submits that the certified
copies of the petitions have been brought on record to verify this
fact and for reference. There was even no occasion for
abatement of the appeal as there were altogether 11 appellants
and 9 of them still remained on record and right to sue survived.
Learned counsel further submits that if some words have been
added by the court and the words are in the same handwriting,
that does not mean interpolation has been made. If any wrong
date has been mentioned, it is for the court to explain the same.
Learned counsel further submits that moreover the learned 1 st
appellate court has taken into consideration the conduct of the
appellants in filing this application after passage of nine years.
The petitioners appeared in the title appeal in the year 2010 and
thereafter discontinued their appearance and again they
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.213 of 2024 dt.22-04-2025
6/8
appeared in the year 2015 but did not bring this fact to the
notice of the court earlier. Once, a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, vide order dated 19.09.2023 passed in Civil. Misc. No.
448 of 2018, directed for fresh consideration of petitions dated
08.01.2018 and 24.01.2018 filed on behalf of the respondents,
the petitioners raised this issue so as to hamper the disposal of
Title Appeal No. 21 of 1999.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. Perusal
of the order-sheet dated 21.07.2014 certainly shows addition of
some words and dates. It is also apparent that there has been no
application dated 03.09.2013 filed for substitution of any of the
appellants. Still, at one place date 03.09.13 has been added as if
some application was filed on 03.09.2013. On the other hand,
the application dated 19.12.2013 filed for substitution of
appellant Dulare Choudhary does not find mention anywhere in
the order dated 21.07.2014. It is also apparent that by making
such interpolation, no obvious benefit is going to accrue to the
appellants. If their petition for substitution was already on
record, the learned 1st appellate court did not explain the
addition of words and only offered the reasons that as the order-
sheet was drawn by his predecessor and the words added were
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.213 of 2024 dt.22-04-2025
7/8
in same handwriting and ink, there appeared no interpolation.
The reasoning might be correct still the order-sheet being
records of judicial proceedings are considered sacrosanct and it
was incumbent upon the learned 1st appellate court to explain
the situation in which the order-sheet was so drawn. When there
has been no application dated 03.09.2013, mentioning it even at
single place would require explanation from the court
concerned. To this limited point, I think the learned 1 st appellate
court erred and it ought to have given its explanation on this
point. However, considering the passage of time that the order-
sheet has been drawn on 21.07.2014 and the issue was raked up
only on 11.12.2023 and 17.01.2024 by the petitioners, I do not
think any useful purpose would be served in flogging the dead
horse. Even otherwise, I do not find any infirmity in the
impugned order.
6. Hence, the impugned order dated 27.01.2024
passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-1st,
Danapur in Title Appeal No. 21 of 1999 is affirmed with a rider
that the learned 1st appellate court will correct the order-sheet
taking into consideration the proper dates of application filed on
behalf of the respondents for substitution which do not find
mention in the order-sheet dated 21.07.2014 and also explain the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.213 of 2024 dt.22-04-2025
8/8
circumstances in which the order-sheet dated 21.07.2014 has
been drawn. This exercise would be completed by the learned 1st
appellate court within a period of one month from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
7. In terms of aforesaid direction, the present petition
stands disposed of.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
balmukund/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 24.04.2025 Transmission Date NA
[ad_1]
Source link