D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been preferred by the Petitioners, who are original Defendants, against an order passed by Sub Judge -IX, Ranchi dated 11th February 2011 in Title Suit 170 of 2004, whereby an application given by the original Plaintiffs to present documentary evidence on record, the list whereof is at Annexure -4 to the memo of this present petition, were allowed to be presented before the trial Court by the impugned order and therefore, the original Defendants have challenged this order by way of this writ petition.
(2.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly, on the following reasons and facts: (i) The present Respondents are the original Plaintiffs, who have instituted Title Suit No. 170 of 2004 and several documents were presented by the original Plaintiffs before the trial Court. (ii) It further appears from the facts of the case that the original Plaintiffs are also relying upon certain documents, which were presented in some appellate Court or in another suit pending before Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, Ranchi and those documents were obtained later on from another suit and therefore, there is no delay in presenting those documents in present Title Suit No. 170 of 2004. (iii) It further appears that the list of those documents are at Annexure -4 to the memo of this petition. All those documents were allowed to be presented in Title Suit No. 170 of 2004 by the impugned order passed by Sub Judge -IX, Ranchi vide order dated 11th February 2011. (iv) Aggrieved by order dated 11th February 2011, the Defendants have challenged, mainly, on the ground that those documents are not relevant documents and therefore, presentation of documents ought not to have been allowed by the learned trial Court. This contention is not accepted by this Court, mainly, on the reason that looking to the nature of the documents which are connected with the suit property and therefore, rightly the presentation of those documents have been allowed by the learned trial Court. (v) It further appears from the facts of the case that the Respondents are the original Plaintiffs. Burden of proof is upon the original Plaintiffs. Those documents, which were allowed to be presented before the trial Court in Title Suit No. 170 of 2004, are the documents presented by the original Plaintiffs and therefore, the Plaintiffs have to prove those documents. Plaintiffs will take their own evidence and will prove those documents. (vi) Counsel appearing for the Defendants prayed that Defendants may be allowed to cross -examine the witness No. 5 presented by the Plaintiffs. Counsel appearing for the original Plaintiffs submitted that they have no much objection, but they must complete this cross -examination in a day or two and without vesting any further time. In view of these facts and reasons and looking to the nature of the documents, which are allowed to be presented by the trial Court in Title Suit No. 170 of 2004, which are relevant documents, no error has been committed by the trial Court. If an application prefers by the original Defendants for cross -examination of witness No. 5 presented by the Plaintiffs, the same will be liberally allowed by the trial Court.
(3.) IN view of aforesaid there is no substance in this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.;