- (1.) BEING aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by an order, passed by the Sub Judge -VI, Ranchi, in Title Suit No. 100 of 2002, dated February 24, 2009, which is at Annexure 7 to the memo of present petition, whereby, a registered document, presented by the original defendant, was permitted to be taken on record and was given exhibit number, as the same was registered sale deed pertaining to part of the suit property, purchased by the original defendant from the predecessor -in -title, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) It appears that the present petitioner is the original plaintiff, who has instituted Title Suit No. 100 of 2002 before the Sub Judge -VI, Ranchi. The suit property is admeasuring, approximately 1.08 Acres, situated at Village - Arsandey, Police Station - Ranchi, Now Kanke; (ii) It appears that the originally the land was belonging to one Sri Seikh Akbar from 1935, who had two sons, namely, Sk. Sakoor and Sk. Sarfuddin. Sk. Sharfuddin sold the property in 1950 to one Sri Ram Lakhan Shaw, who sold the entire property, which he had purchased, in 1959 to one Satyadeo Narayan Tiwary, Yogendra Narayan Tiwary and Sribrath Narayan Tiwary, who sold away the property, purchased by them, in 1960 to one Prof. Bishnu Anugrah Narayan and this Professor Bishnu Anugrah Narayan sold the property by a registered sale deed dated December 29, 1983 to the original plaintiff and this document, which is a vital document, which effects the very root of the suit property, was presented by the original defendant in Title Suit No. 100 of 2002, which was rightly allowed by the trial court and was given an exhibit number. (iii) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner (original plaintiff) that at the fag end of the trial, such document has been present and, therefore, the same ought not to have been allowed to be presented. This contention is not accepted by this Court, firstly, for the reason that the document, presented by the defendant, is a vital document and affects the very root of the case; secondly, for the reason that in Title Suit No. 100 of 2002 the plaintiff claims ownership upon the proprty and the defendant is also claiming ownership and, therefore, the document relating to title, if presented by any of the party to the suit, ought to be allowed by the trial court, so that the dispute between the parties can be decided accurately and correctly by the trial court; thirdly, for the reason that the presented document is a registered sale deed. Once the sale deed is registered, there is no need to examine vendor or vendee and straightway, it can be given exhibit number. It all depends upon the argument what is evidentiary value thereof, but so far as, giving exhibit number to the document and taking it on record is concerned, no error has been committed by the trial court, in allowing the defendant to present the sale deed, whereby, the defendant is claiming title. Fourthly, for the reason that cost has been awarded by the trial court, keeping in mind the maintaining of equilibrium of necessity of a document for justice, to be delivered and the delay. As the cost has already been awarded, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, passed by the trial court. Merely because there is a delay in presenting the document, it cannot be said that such a vital document which has direct nexus with the suit property cannot be allowed to be presented. Otherwise also, at the first appellate stage, such document will be allowed to be presented and the matter may be remanded. To avoid such a complex situation, rightly an order has been passed in favour of the original defendant, by imposing a cost. In view of the aforesaid facts, no error has been committed by the trial court, much less an error apparent on the face of the record. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this writ petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed.;