Debaki Das And Others vs Khiramani Mahalik And Others

K.R. Mohapatra, J

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Order dated 14th May, 2024 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Civil Judge, Balasore in Civil Suit No.254 of 1987 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby an application filed by the Plaintiffs-Petitioners to call for Book-1 register from the office of the District Sub-Register, Balasore to prove Ext.2 and its execution, has been rejected.

Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs-Petitioners submits that Ext.2, the Registered Sale Deed on the basis of which the Plaintiffs claim right, title and interest over the suit property has been exhibited without any objection. After closure of the argument from both the sides, when the suit was posted for pronouncement of judgment, the Defendants engaging another counsel, filed an application for further argument. The said application was allowed. In his argument, learned counsel for the Defendants raised an objection that although Ext.2 has been executed, but it was never acted upon. Thus, in order to prove Ext.2 and its execution, an application as aforesaid was filed. Learned trial Court without appreciating the case of the Petitioners in its proper perspective, rejected the same holding that the Plaintiffs instead of cooperating with the Court for responding to the argument made by the Defendants, has filed the application. It is also held that the said register is not at all necessary for adjudication of the suit since Ext.2 has been marked without objection. He, therefore, submits that the observation made by learned trial Court is erroneous to the extent that in order to meet the objection made by the learned counsel for the Defendants, the Plaintiffs-Petitioners seek to call for Book-1 from the office of the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore to prove Ext. 2 and its execution. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-4.

Taking note of the submission made by Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioners and on perusal of the record, it appears that Ext.2 has been marked without objection. Of course, learned counsel for the Defendants, in course of further argument, raised an objection that although Ext.2 was executed, but it was never acted upon. Thus, the burden is on the Defendants to prove the same. Since Ext.2 is a registered document and marked as an exhibit without objection, further proof of the same is not necessary. However, the evidentiary value of Ext. 2 can be considered at the time of argument of the suit. Thus, in my considered view, learned trial Court has committed no error in rejecting the petition filed by the Plaintiffs, as aforesaid.

Accordingly, the CMP being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

.……………………………