Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is directed against the order dated June 7, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Fast Track Court, Lalbagh in Civil Reivsion Case No.25 of 2003 affirming the order no.67 dated February 21, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional court, Lalbagh in Title Suit No.37 of 1995.
(2.) THE opposite party no.1 instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner and the proforma defendants before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional court, Lalbagh. THE defendants/petitioners were contesting the said suit and the suit was at the stage of recording evidence. At that stage, one Amalnama was produced by the plaintiff and it was marked exhibit by the learned Trial Judge by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said order, this application has been preferred. Upon hearing the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the short question involved in the matter is whether the learned Trial Judge was justified in marking the document Amalnama as exhibit no.2. The plaintiff has specifically stated in their plaint that on taking settlement of the land in suit from the then owners, the father of the plaintiff constructed a house thereon and subsequently the construction was demolished. So, from the nature of Amalnama, it is clear that a permanent settlement was done in respect of the immovable property. This being the position, according to the decision of 18 CWN 38, the Amalnama executed and meant as permanent grant of lease requires registration and so, unless and until the Amalnama is registered, the same could not be admitted into evidence. Under the circumstances, the learned Trial Judge has committed a wrong in marking the said document as exhibit. The lower revisional Court rejected the application on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the revisional application under Section 115A of the C.P.C. So, I am of the view that the order impugned cannot be sustained. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside.
(3.) IT is observed that the Amalnama in question could not be marked as exhibit since the same was not registered. So, the order dated February 21, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Lalbag is hereby set aside. The order dated June 7, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Fast Track Court, Lalbag in Civil Revision Case No.25 of 2003 is hereby set aside. The learned Trial Judge shall proceed with the suit from the stage of setting aside the order dated February 21, 2002. Since the suit is old one, the learned Trial Judge shall dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of communication without fail. The revisional application is disposed of in the manner indicated above.;