- (1.) The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order, passed by the learned Sub-Judge II, Ranchi, dated 10th September, 2008, below an application preferred by the present petitioner (original defendant) in Title Suit No. 140 of 2004 under Order 8 Rule I-A of the Code of Civil Procedure for presenting certified copies of the sale deeds, which has been dismissed by the learned trial court vide order at Annexure 6 to the memo of petition and, therefore, the original defendant no.4 (petitioner herein) has preferred this writ petition.
(2.) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case: (i) It appears that the petitioner is an original defendant no.4 in Title Suit No. 140 of 2004, instituted by respondent nos. 1 and 2 (original plaintiffs). (ii) It appears that the present petitioner (original defendant no.4) and other defendants have already filed their written statement, wherein, they have referred about the transactions of certain sale deeds in their favour. Photo copies of those sale deeds were already presented before the trial court. Since at the relevant time, the petitioner was not having certified copies or the original copies of the sale deeds, therefore, he had not presented the certified copies of those sale deeds. Originals of the sale deeds were with the purchasers, who had refused to part with those originals of the sale deeds. (iii) It also appears from the facts of the case that even in absence of the certified copies of the sale deeds, the fact remains that there is a clear cut averment in the written statement about the transactions of those sale deeds as well as photo copies of those sale deeds are also on record right from very beginning of Title Suit No. 140 of 2004. These documents were also on record prior to framing of the issues in the aforesaid Title Suit No. 140 of 2004. (iv) It appears that thereafter, this petitioner and respondent nos. 3 to 6 obtained certified copies of those sale deeds, transactions whereof are already referred in the written statement and the photo copies whereof have already been presented before the trial court prior to the framing of the issues. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial court, while passing the impugned order, which is an error apparent on the face of the record. (v) Thus, it appears that no prejudice is going to cause to the original plaintiffs by presentation of the certified copies of the sale deeds, because photo copies of those sale deeds are already on record. The issues have been framed, keeping in mind those sale deeds. Now the only question left out is whether there is a deliberate delay or deliberate action on the part of the petitioner and respondent nos. 3 to 6, in not presenting the certified copies of those sale deeds, though they were already having the same in their possession. (vi) Looking to the facts of the case, it appears that the present petitioner (original defendant no.4) and present respondent nos. 3 to 6 were not having the certified copies of those sale deeds and, therefore, the photo copies of those sale deeds were presented by the intervener and, later on, when this petitioner got certified copies of those sale deeds, which have been presented before trial court and, thus, there is no willful concealment of documents or delay or laches on the part of the present petitioner and respondent nos. 3 to 6 in not presenting the certified copies of sale deeds. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial court. On the contrary, no sooner did this petitioner as well as respondent nos. 3 to 6 got the certified copies of those sale deeds, they have presented the same before the trial court. Even otherwise also, as stated hereinabove, photo copies of those documents are already on record and, thus, no prejudice is going to cause to respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are original plaintiffs. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the trial court.
(3.) As a cumulative effect to the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby quash and set aside the order, passed by the learned Sub-Judge II, Ranchi, dated 10th September, 2008, in Title Suit No. 140 of 2004 and I hereby allow the petitioner (original defendant no.4) as also respondent nos. 3 to 6 to present the certified copies of the sale deeds, which are referred to in their applications, at Annexure 3 series to the memo of petition, with a cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred), which will be deposited by the petitioner before the trial court, within a period of four weeks from today and upon proper application by respondent nos. 1 and 2 (original plaintiffs) the said amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) will be allowed to be withdrawn by the original plaintiffs.;