M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) BY this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of' India, petitioner, who is defendant in Title Suit No. 33 of 2001, has challenged the order dated 30.8.2006 passed by Sub -Judge, Koderma whereby he has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for admitting certain documents as exhibits.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff -respondents filed Title Suit No. 33 of 2001 against defendant -petitioner and others for declaration that the suit property is joint ancestral property of Babu Ram, the common ancestor of the parties, and also for declaration that in the record of right, entry of name of defendant in Khata No. 911 is wrong and illegal. On receipt of summon, petitioner appeared in the case and filed petition for time for filing written statement. Since defendant did not file written statement within time, he was debarred from filing written statement by order dated 19.5.2005 and the suit was fixed for ex prate hearing. It is worth to mention here that subsequent thereto, petitioner filed application along with written statement with a prayer to recall the order dated 19.5.2005 and to accept the written statement, but the same was rejected. During hearing of the suit, petitioner filed application on 2.5.2006 with a prayer not to accept the halaknama filed by the plaintiff as evidence on the ground that the same is not genuine document. The said prayer was rejected by the Court. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition on 19.8.2006 in the suit with a prayer to permit him to prove the two sale deeds, Register -II of the Office of Anchal Adhikari, Jhumritilaiya, Collection Book of Jhumritilaiya Municipality, Khatian and order sheet and proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr. P.C. The said petition was objected by the plaintiff -respondent. The said petition was rejected by the Court on the ground that the counsel and the petitioner did not press the same. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner swore an affidavit contending inter alia that on 22.8.2006 he pressed the application. However, the Court below after hearing the parties rejected the said petition by passing the impugned order 30.8.2006. I have heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and, Mr. Raj Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the impugned order.
(3.) FROM perusal of the order, it appears that the Court below refused to accept these documents into evidence mainly on the ground that petitioner sought to adduce the documents by way of his defense. Relevant portion of the impugned order is worth to be quoted herein -below: - "Perused the record, the suit ponds for hearing u/O. VIII, Rule 10 C.P.C. and in view of the nature of the suit, the Of. have been permitted to adduce evidence only to the extent of demolishing the plaintiff's case to arrive at just decision of the suit/dispute. The referred document have been filed on 15.6.05 and the sale deed bearing No.5705 with respect to the suit land executed by Of. Nos. -1 and 3 in favour of one Draupati Oevi and sale deed No. 203 relates with the suit land and as such, it is not acceptable in evidence as this documents clearly appears to be in form of defence and besides this it is specific pleadings of the plaintiff that the title deeds stand in the name of of. No. 1 and in the name of father of of. No. 2 and 3 and as such, the petitioner cannot be permitted to adduce evidence with regard to his own defence or admitted fact. Register -II of Municipality and C.C. of order passed in Eviction T.A. No. 2/04 relates with withdrawal of the appeal in between Mast. Sugiya and Of. No. 1 and others with respect to the suit land and the order passed in a proceeding u/s 144 Cr .P.C. relating to the suit property clearly suggests that these documents relates with self -defence of the Of. No. 1 and in the particular case, the of No. 1 cannot be permitted to adduce evidence to establish his own right, title, interest as he has been debarred from filing W.S. or to support specific pleadings of the plaintiff. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances I find no substance in the prayer and accordingly prayer is refused and the petition dated 19.8.06 stand disposed of. The learned lawyer for of No. 1 has prayed for time as he wishes to move the Hon' ble Court against the order dated 22.8.06. In the facts and circumstances, discussed above, it clearly appears that the prayer is vexatious with lingering attitude. Even if, the petitioner wishes to file Revision Writ, he may do so, but I do not find any reason to adjourn the suit on that ground. Accordingly, the prayer stand disposed of and the of. No. 1 is directed to adduce evidence, if any, by next date. Put up on 5.9.06." ;