KARTICK CHANDRA BERA Vs. SULATA BERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against the order dated 04.11.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fifth Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 27 of 2001 whereby the learned Civil Judge rejected an application praying for admitting the two documents to evidence.

(2.) The short fact leading to the filing of the application is that the plaintiffs/opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 instituted the Title Suit No. 27 of 2001 against the defendants/petitioners and the opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 stating, inter alia, that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of a certain immovable property by way of purchase by a registered deed of sale of 1983 and thereafter they got an eviction decree against defendants/tenants in respect of one room of the holding No. 9/2, Stal Kart Lane, Salkia. They got delivery of possession by executing the decree through Court on 27.11.2000 with the help of police. But the petitioners and the opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 took forcible possession of another room of the property in suit by breaking open the lock when the police personnel, bailiff and others left the place. So the plaintiffs/opposite parties have filed the suit for recovery of possession against the defendants as trespassers. The defendants are contesting the suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations stating, inter alia, that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit property and that Binoy Kumar Ghosh and another, owners of the property in suit, allowed the petitioner No.1 to look after the property and to occupy one room as caretaker. The deed produced by the plaintiffs/opposite parties is not genuine and question of surrender of tenancy or taking the forcible possession did not taken place at all.

(3.) During trial of the suit, evidence of the plaintiffs was closed. Even the defendants adduced evidence by examining the defendant No. 2 on behalf of the defendant Nos: 1 and 2. Thereafter mother independent witness was examined. At that time, the defendants wanted to examine one Kabindranath Chowdhury who was not a party to the suit and to mark two documents of the year of 1967 and 1975 as exhibits on the plea that those were 30 years of old and the custody of the document had been proved. So those two documents must have been marked as exhibits by the learned Trial Judge. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection of their prayer marking the two documents as exhibits, the defendants/petitioners have preferred this application.