- (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners is absent.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondents (original plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 11 of 2006, who has submitted that looking to the irrelevancy in the deposition, given by the witness of the original plaintiffs, the trial court has rightly rejected the deposition, given by the witness of the plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule VII of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Sub -Judge -I, Dumka, in Title Suit No. 11 of 2006 dated 5th July, 2008, at Annexure -2 to the memo of petition, is true, correct, legal and in consonance with the facts and law and hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for the original defendants/respondents and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order dated 5th July, 2008, passed by the learned Sub -Judge -I, Dumka, in Title Suit No. 11 of 2006, mainly for the following facts and reasons: '' (i) It appears from the facts of the case that the petitioners are the original plaintiffs, who have filed Title Suit No. 11 of 2006. (ii) It also appears from the facts of the case that the witness of the original plaintiff had made statement, on oath about a custom, prevailing in the society, and as per the original the said part of the deposition, given by the witness of the original plaintiffs, is beyond the pleadings and, therefore, it was contended by the learned counsel for the original defendants that the said statement, made on oath, by the witness of the plaintiffs be removed as a part of the deposition, because the custom, which is stated, on oath, by the witness of the plaintiffs is beyond the pleadings and the issues, raised in Title Suit No. 11 of 2006 and this contention of the original defendants has been accepted by the learned trial court and the statement, made on oath by the witness of the plaintiff, has been set at knot (sic ''nought?). (iii) This is an error on the part of the trial court mainly for the reasons that once the witness of the plaintiff's side is giving the deposition or making statement, on oath, it cannot be rejected on such type of ground, because all care can be taken of the deposition of the plaintiff's side witness and its evidentiary value, at the* time of final hearing of the suit. The trial court ought not to have fallen in the trap of this type of the arguments of the defendants and should have passed any such type of speaking orders, instead of an interlocutory order, which increases the litigation and thereby delays the disposal of the suit. All such type of contentions should be allowed to be raised at the time of final hearing, especially about the evidentiary value of the deposition of the plaintiff's side witness.
(3.) AS a cumulative effect, I hereby quash and set aside the order dated 5th July, 2008, passed by the learned SubJudge -I, Dumka, in Title Suit No. 11 of 2006 and I hereby direct the trial court to dispose of the suit (Title Suit No. 11 of 2006) as expeditiously as possible and practicable, on its own merits, and the contention of the original defendants/respondents raised about the evidentiary value of the deposition of the said witness will be considered at the time of final hearing, without being influenced by the interim order dated 5th July, 2008 ana without being influenced by the order, passed by this Court.;