SARBANI SAMANTA Vs. PRATAP KUMAR PANJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is to the Order No. 70 dated September 18, 2010 and the Order No.39 dated April 25, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Burdwan in Title Suit No.104 of 2003.

(2.) THE plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.104 of 2003 against the opposite parties praying, inter alia, for declaration that the plaintiff/petitioner has 12.5 per cent shares in the partnership firm; that the reconstituted Deed dated January 16, 1998 of the partnership firm is void, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff and also for other consequential reliefs.

(3.) NOW, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials-on-record, I find that prayer for marking the photocopy of the partnership Deed in question was rejected by the earlier order No.70 dated September 18, 2010 and against such orders, no revision was preferred. Subsequently, on November 20, 2010, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC for review of that order dated September 18, 2010 and that application was rejected by the order dated April 25, 2011. So far as the merit of the application is concerned, I find that the original partnership Deed had been produced by the defendants and it had been marked as 'Exhibit' on behalf of the defendants. When the original Deed had been produced and marked as 'Exhibit' in the suit, it would serve the interests of both the parties with regard to the original Deed of partnership. It does not matter in whose favour the document had been marked 'Exhibit'. In the instant case, the document which the plaintiff/petitioner herein wanted to mark 'Exhibit' was nothing but a 'mere photocopy' as recorded by the learned Trial Judge in the order dated September 18, 2010 and it was submitted by the defendant No.1 to the Income Tax Office along with the Income Tax Return and so, it could not be any certified copy of the original Deed but a 'mere photocopy' of the Deed which was submitted by the defendant No.1 before the Income Tax Department. Such copy can never be marked 'Exhibit'. Moreover, it was not authenticated and certified by the persons having capacity to act in the said manner.