Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the defendant No. 5 and is directed against the order dated December 17, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 3rd Bench, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 2101 of 2000 thereby rejecting the prayer for calling the lease -deed from the Office of the Registrar of Assurance, Kolkata. The plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 2101 of 2000 in the City Civil Court, Calcutta against the petitioner and other defendants praying for decree for recovery of possession and other reliefs. The petitioner and other defendants are contesting the said suit and both the parties have adduced evidence. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of both the parties was closed and the suit was fixed for hearing argument. At that stage the application for recall as stated above was filed by the petitioner and that application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.
(2.) NOW , the question is whether the learned Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the said prayer. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the materials -on -record, I find that the said suit was filed in the year 2002 for the reliefs already stated. The suit had to pass different hurdles and for that reason this Hon'ble Court directed the learned Trial Judge to expedite the disposal of the said suit and to discourage unnecessary adjournments. Ultimately, the suit was at the stage of hearing of argument over the suit. At that stage, the petitioner filed the application for calling for the original record of the lease -deed of 1969 from the Office of the Registrar of Assurance, Kolkata contending, inter alia, that the lessee did not sign on the said deed of lease and as such for verification of the signature of the lessee the original lease -deed was required.
(3.) ON the basis of the materials -on -record, I find that the certified copy of the deed of lease in question was marked as 'Exhibit No. 1' without any objection meaning thereby the formal proof of the said lease -deed was dispensed with. It may be pointed out that the said lease was for a period of 31 years and that expired long time back and so, the recovery of possession has been sought for under the circumstances. At the stage of argument over the suit that the application was filed. Upon perusal of the copy of the deposition of the D.W.1, I find that the deed in question has been marked 'Exhibit -1' without any objection meaning thereby the formal proof of the said deed of lease has been dispensed with and accordingly, the deed has been marked as 'Exhibit -1'. It may be pointed out herein that other documents were marked as 'Exhibit -2 & 3 Series' with objection on the same day. This fact clearly signifies that the petitioner had no objection in marking the said deed of lease as 'Exhibit'. In other words, the petitioner had no objection if the said copy of the deed of lease was taken into consideration for adjudication of the disputes between the parties. Both the parties have adduced evidence thereafter accordingly and the suit is now at the stage of argument.;