- (1.) THE present petition has been preferred against the order passed by learned Sub -Judge -ll, Ranchi dated 7th June, 2008 in Title Suit No. 8/2007 upon two different applications, which were preferred by the petitioner (original plaintiff) on 14th May, 2008, one for further production of the document. The said document is an application, preferred by defendant nos. 1 to 4 under Section 26 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (for sale of three decimals of land) by way of Miscellaneous Application No. 2711 of 2006 before the concerned authority under the Act, 1976. Another application preferred before the trial Court was to send the agreement to sell dated 3rd June, 2006 to the handwriting expert mainly for the fact that defendant nos. 2 to 9 are alleging that the agreement to sell is a fabricated document and not signed by them. These two applications, preferred by petitioner -original plaintiff, have been brushe aside by the common order dated 7th June, 2008 and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner (original plaintiff).
(2.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (original plaintiff), who has submitted that Title Suit No. 8/ 2007 has been preferred by the petitioner on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 3rd June, 2006, which was signed by the defendants with respect to 11 decimals of land. For three decimals of land, an application was preferred under Section 26 of the Act, 1976 by defendant nos. 1 to 4 for grant of permission to sell all these land to the wife of the original plaintiff. Thus, this document affects the very root of the case and, therefore, an application was preferred on 14th May, 2008 for production of the said document before the trial Court. Another application was preferred on 14th May, 2008 for sending the agreement to sell to the handwriting expert, as defendant nos. 2 to 9 are denying to have signed upon the said document. No prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner if these applications are allowed. The stage of taking evidence of defendant nos. 2 to 9 has not yet closed. Thus, when the stage of taking evidence of the plaintrff as well as that of defendant no. 1 is going on, the trial Court ought to have allowed these two applications, one for further production of the document and another for sending the agreement to sell to the handwriting expert. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court and hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent nos. 2 to 9 (who are original defendant nos. 2 to 9), who has submitted that an application was preferred under Section 26 of the U.L.C. Act, 1976 for getting permission of sell of the land in favour of the wife of the plaintiff and, therefore, it is not a relevant document for deciding the dispute between the original plaintiff and the defendants and, therefore, rightly, the said application, was dismissed by the trial Court. Secondly, it is argued that so far as agreement to sell is concerned, except defendant no. 3, all the defendants have denied their signatures and, therefore, there is no need to send the document to the handwriting expert and, therefore, this application has also been correctly dismissed by the trial Court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent no. 1 (original defendant no. 1) submitted that he accepts the argument, canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner (original plaintiff) and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.;