Gauhati High Court
Monowar Hussain vs Manoranjan Das on 17 February, 2016
Equivalent citations: AIR 2016 GAUHATI 62, (2016) 4 GAU LR 298, (2016) 161 ALLINDCAS 781 (GAU), (2016) 4 CIVLJ 78
Author: N. Chaudhury
Bench: N. Chaudhury
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
Case No: CRP(I/O) 80/2015
1. Monowar Hussain
S/o Akbar Ali,
P.O. & Vill : Golapara Pt-II,
P.S: Abhayapuri, Dist: Bongaigaon (Assam).
...... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Sri Manoranjan Das
S/o Late Udayasan Das,
P.O. & Vill: Dubapara, P.S: Mornoi,
Dist: Goalpara (Assam)
Resident of Barvitha, Mouza- Titapani,
District- Barpeta, Assam.
....... Respondent
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. CHAUDHURY
For the Petitioner : Mrs. R Choudhury
Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. AR Sikdar
Advocate
Date of Hearing : 17.02.2016
Date of delivery of
Judgment and Order : 17.02.2016
Page 1 of 5
CRP(I/O) 80/2015
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL )
Heard Ms. R Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. AR Sikdar, learned counsel for the opposite party. Order dated 01.07.2015 passed by learned Munsiff, North Salmara, Abhayapuri in Title Suit No. 18/2009 has been called in question in the present revision petition. By that order the learned court refused to grant leave to the defendant for producing registered sale deed No. 212 dated 03.02.1997.
2. The sole opposite party, as plaintiff, instituted Title Suit No. 18/2009 in the court of learned Munsiff, North Salmara, praying for declaration of his right, title and interest and recovery of khas possession of the suit land further declaring that Udayasan Das, father of the plaintiff, was the exclusive owner in possession over the suit land. The defendants No. 1 to 5 filed a joint written statement denying the case of the plaintiff. They stated in paragraph 9 of the written statement that during the life time of Late Udayasan Das and Late Balai Chandra Das they jointly sold from Schedule 'A' land a plot measuring 3 K 11 L to Sri Phonindra Nath Das vide registered sale deed No. 212 dated 03.02.1997 from patta No. 155.
3. In course of trial, plaintiff exhibited a number of documents and thereafter the defendants filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure on 27.05.2015 craving leave of the court to produce three more documents. One of the documents was copy of jamabandi of surveyed village of Goalpara, Part-IV in respect of patta No. 116 and the other is certified copy of registered sale deed No. 1818 dated 28.08.2008. The Page 2 of 5 CRP(I/O) 80/2015 defendants also made a prayer for adducing registered sale deed No. 212 dated 03.02.1997 on record as document No. 2. In the body of the application it was stated that all the documents were handed over to the engaged counsel for production before the court in appropriate time but the learned counsel for reasons best known to him did not produce the same. However, after change of advocate and engagement of new set of advocates, it came to light that the aforesaid documents though necessary for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute, yet the same was not produced by the learned counsel. Accordingly, leave was craved for production of the same under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff, by filing an objection on 01.07.2015, contested the prayer and claimed that the defendants actually did not hand over the documents to their previous engaged advocate and that is why the earlier engaged lawyer did not file the same before the court although he had filed several petitions to submit original documents. After considering the objection raised, the learned trial court by impugned order dated 01.07.2015 disposed of the same by holding that documents No. 1 and 3 having been already brought on record by the plaintiff, there is no question of any prejudice to him even if the defendants have produced the same again. But in regard to document No. 2 i.e., registered sale deed No. 212 dated 03.02.1997, the learned court was of the view that the defendants are not entitled to leave and accordingly this prayer was not allowed.
4. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 01.07.2015, it is the case of the petitioner that all the documents were handed over to the learned counsel in appropriate time but the learned counsel did not produce the same for reasons Page 3 of 5 CRP(I/O) 80/2015 best known to him and it came to light only after advocate was changed and new advocates were engaged. The plaintiff has challenged the veracity of the statement by claiming that no such document was ever handed over to the learned counsel by the defendants. The question as to whether the defendants handed over a particular document to his counsel or not, is within the knowledge of the defendant and his counsel and apparently plaintiff cannot have any personal knowledge in regard thereto. Such a denial, therefore, is for the sake of denial only. The same is beyond the knowledge of the plaintiff.
5. Coming to the merit of the impugned order it appears that learned trial court refused to grant leave only because of the fact that the defendant did not file the same along with written statement or at the stage of filing document and that the ground mentioned in the application was not satisfactory. The learned court has not considered as to what was the ground taken in the application. The learned court has also not considered as to whether the document is necessary for arriving at a just decision in the suit. This is important because under section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure courts are vested with power and responsibility to issue necessary order from time to time, inter alia, directing parties to produce or give evidence in regard to materials which are necessary for arriving at truth. In a catena of decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated the actions of the learned courts below for not taking recourse to the provision of Section 30 at the time of admitting documents into record or at the time of trial. After all, the litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth and a court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in a dispute raised between two parties. Observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Page 4 of 5 CRP(I/O) 80/2015 Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Ors. vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) through L.Rs. reported in (2012) 5 SCC 370 may be referred in this regard.
6. Upon perusal of the written statement it appears that the documents sought to have been brought on record by the defendants was mentioned in paragraph 9 of the written statement and so even if the document is brought on record, it cannot be said that the defendant has sought to set up a new case or that the document would be beyond pleading. On the other hand, these documents may be relevant for the purpose of deciding the claim of the plaintiff over the suit land. Considering the facts and circumstances, it does not appear that registered sale deed No. 212 dated 03.02.1997 would not be necessary for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute. Once a doubt arises that a document may be necessary for deciding a lis between the parties, it is always safe to allow the document to be brought on record and thereafter arrive at a decision on merit. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maria Margarida (supra), the impugned order passed by the learned trial court does not appear to be proper and correct. Accordingly, the revision petition stands allowed. The learned trial court is directed to permit the defendant to produce the registered sale deed No. 212 dated 03.02.1997 and thereupon to decide the suit in accordance with law.
7. No order as to costs.
8. Interim order, if any, stands automatically vacated.
JUDGE BiswaS Page 5 of 5 CRP(I/O) 80/2015