- (1.) HEARD Mr. Satish Kumar Ughal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kalyan Banerjee for the Respondent No. 1 and J.C. to S.C. (L&C) for the Respondent -State.
(2.) PETITIONER , in this writ application has prayed for quashing the order dated 24.09.2008, passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Tract Court No. 1, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 69 of 2006 (Annexure -3), whereby the petitioner's prayer made vide his petition dated 15.07.2008 for allowing him to adduce in evidence a document, namely, the letter bearing No. 213, dated. 19.02.2001, addressed by the Circle Officer, Nirsa to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, has been rejected. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid document is highly relevant for just decision of the issues involved in the dispute in this case before the court below, which relates to the claim of title of the plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 over the suit lands which has been denied and disputed by the petitioner/defendant no. 1.
(3.) THE facts of the case, as explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 had filed Title Suit No. 48 of 2002, in the Sub -Judge, 01st Court, Dhanbad for a decree declaring his right, title and interest over the suit lands. Petitioner being one of the contesting defendants had denied and disputed the claim of the plaintiff/Respondent no. 1 and had filed his written statements. Separate written statements were filed by the other defendants in the suit. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 and against the judgment and decree, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate court vide Title Appeal No. 69 of 2006. After hearing the appeal, the appellate court remanded the case to the trial court with a direction to give its finding on two specific issues and further directed to allow the parties to adduce evidence on the said issues. The trial court recorded its finding on the two issues, as specified by the appellate court and thereafter, the matter was placed before the appellate court. The petitioner filed his petition, praying for allowing him to adduce the document referred to above on the ground that it was relevant and a material piece of evidence and the petitioner would suffer prejudice if the document is not allowed to be adduced in evidence on his behalf. The petitioner's prayer was contested by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1. The appellate court after considering the document and explanatory submissions offered by the learned counsel for the parties, rejected the petitioner's prayer vide the impugned order on the ground that the existence of the documents was all along within the knowledge of the defendant/appellant, and yet he had made no reference to the documents whatsoever in his written statements and had not even made any effort whatsoever for securing the production of the documents, if according to him, the document was not in his custody and was in the custody of some other person. Furthermore, the appellate court had also expressed that in the light of the evidences already adduced on behalf of the concerned authorities of the Respondent -State, the document sought to be introduced in the evidence by the appellant, was not necessary for the just decision on the issues raised.;