APARESH KUMAR SINGH,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) There are two orders one dated 9th May, 2005 and other dated 18th May, 2005 (Annexure 10 Series) impugned in the present writ application arising out of Title Suit no. 8/98. By order dated 9th May, 2005, the application of the petitioner dated 20th December, 2004 under Order 12, Rule 3A C.P.C asking the plaintiff to admit a document being the copy of plaint of Title Suit no. 16/96 has been rejected by learned Trial Court on the grounds that the evidence of the parties have already been closed and the case is at the stage of argument. Earlier, learned Trial Court had permitted production of order-sheet of Title Suit no. 16/96, which was rejected on the grounds of non-prosecution, but had refused to permit the plaint of the suit on the grounds that it was not in the category of a public document as material Exhibit. Plaintiffs' evidence had been concluded on 11th February, 2002 itself and the evidence of defendants had also been concluded when such an application under Order 12, Rule 3A C.P.C was moved.
(3.) By the impugned order dated 18th May, 2005, learned Munsiff has rejected an application under Order 8, Rule 1A(3)(4), where under the defendant sought to adduce the order-sheet of Case no. 69/80 in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C., 1973 Defendants contended that during cross-examination of plaintiffs' witness no. 1, Lakhan Uraon, the reference of Case no. 158/77 came from the mouth of plaintiffs' witness. The defendant was not under an obligation to enlist such a document along with its written statement in terms of Order 8, Rule 1A (4). This plea has been rejected by learned trial court inter alia on the grounds that not only was the evidence of parties closed by that time but the certified copy of Case no. 158/77 said to have been misplaced earlier, could have again been obtained by due diligence on the part of the defendants and adduced during the course of their evidence.;