- (1.) Learned Counsel for the applicants [original Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 5151 of 2010] seeks permission to delete the name of original Respondent No. 4 from the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the Respondents have No. objection. In view of the aforesaid fact, at the risk of the original Petitioners, the name of Respondent No. 4 is permitted to be deleted from the writ petition. Amendment shall be carried out by red ink and re-numbering of the Respondents shall be done, during course of the day. I.A. No. 1109 of 2011 is allowed and disposed of. The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed by learned Sub Judge-V, Giridih dated 26th August, 2010 in Title Suit No. 73 of 2001, whereby, application given by the original Plaintiffs to present original copy of the sale deed dated 24th October, 1973 in Title Suit No. 73 of 2001 has been denied by the trial Court mainly because of delay and, therefore, the original Plaintiffs have preferred this writ petition.
(2.) Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by learned Sub Judge-V, Giridih dated 26th August, 2010 in Title Suit No. 73 of 2001 mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) The present Petitioners are original Plaintiffs, who have instituted Title Suit No. 73 of 2001. (ii) It appears that the Petitioners are claiming right, title and interest upon the suit property by virtue of a registered sale deed of one Shri Baikunth Raj, who has purchased the property from the father of Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 vide sale deed dated 24th October, 1973. /Photo copy of the same is on record. Now, Plaintiffs want to produce original of sale deed dated 24th October, 1973. This document was given by Shri Baikunth Rai on 18th/19th August, 2010 and on next date Plaintiffs applied to trial Court to produce it on record of Title Suit No. 73 of 2001. (iii) Learned Counsel for the Respondents/Defendants submitted that the sale deed by which the suit property was purchased from the father of the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 by the predecessor-in-title, of the Petitioners i.e. in favour of the Baikunth Rai, is a false and fabricated document. Be as it may, but, the original Plaintiffs received the original of sale deed dated 24th October, 1973 from Baikunth Rai on 18th/ 19th August, 2010 and on very next date, without any loss of time the original Plaintiffs, presented the sale deed dated 24th October, 1973 before the trial Court. This is not allowed by the trial Court because of delay. (iv) It appears that there is some delay in presentation of the original of sale deed after filing of the suit i.e. Title Suit No. 73 of 2001. The evidence of Plaintiffs as well as Defendants is already over, even the final argument of the Plaintiffs and Defendants is also over, but, looking to the nature of the document, the trial Court ought to have allowed the presentation of the earlier sale deed "dated 24th October, 1973 because it is original sale deed. Once, it is original one, it can be exhibited straightway by the trial Court. This document is of the very same suit property, therefore, it is a relevant document. (v) It also appears that No. prejudice is going to cause to the original Defendants, if the original of the sale deed dated 24th October, 1973 is allowed to be taken on record especially when the photo copy whereof is already on record from very beginning.
(3.) As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby allow the Plaintiffs to present the aforesaid sale deed dated 24th October, 1973 on record of Title Suit No. 73 of 2001 and I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by learned Sub Judge-V, Giridih dated 26th August, 2010 in Title Suit No. 73 of 2001. This document is allowed to be presented with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand). This amount will be deposited by the Plaintiffs within a period of fifteen days from today, which will be permitted to be withdrawn by the Defendants upon proper application preferred by them. The Defendants are also permitted to rebut the aforesaid document and to lay their evidences because it is contended by learned Counsel for the Respondents that the said document is false and fabricated document. Looking to the time consumed in the suit, I hereby direct the trial Court to expedite the hearing of Title Suit No. 73 of 2001 so that it can be decided on or before 30th August, 2011.;