CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by order dated 04.06.2007 whereby, the application for adducing further evidence has been dismissed, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, an eviction suit being Eviction Suit No. 23 of 1991 was filed by the petitioner seeking eviction from a portion of suit property. The petitioner preferred a Title Suit No. 02 of 1996 seeking a declaration that SaleDeed No. 2972, SaleDeed No. 2973, SaleDeed No. 2974 dated 12.03.1993, SaleDeed No. 6992 dated 26.05.1988 and SaleDeed No. 12847 dated 16.10.1988 are void ab initio, illegal, inoperative and collusive therefore, requires to be cancelled. The petitioner preferred application dated 03.09.2005 with prayer to adduce certified copy of saledeeds and to examine representative of the company for proving the documents. Petition dated 03.09.2005 was resisted by the defendants contending that the present application has been filed for delaying disposal of the title suit. The said application has been dismissed vide order dated 04.06.2007 and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on record. Counsel for the respondents are absent. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to paragraph no. 3 of the plaint of Title Suit No. 02 of 1996 and submits that the suit was filed seeking declaration that the saledeeds are null and void, inoperative etc and therefore, it was necessary for the plaintiff to bring on record the certified copy of the saledeeds. The certified copy of saledeeds are public documents and therefore, no formal proof is required. Since, the plaintiff has sought a declaration with respect to the SaleDeed No. 2972, SaleDeed No. 2973, SaleDeed No. 2974 dated 12.03.1993, SaleDeed No. 6992 dated 26.05.1988 and SaleDeed No. 12847 dated 16.10.1988 and photocopies of the same are already on record, the learned Trial Court should have allowed the application dated 03.09.2005.;