DIBAKAR MAHATO Vs. BHAGABAT CH MAHATO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This revisional application is directed against orders dated 8th of May, 1986, 12th of May, 1986 and 19th of May, 1986 passed by Shri P. G. Dutta, Munsif, 2nd Court at Midnapore in Title Suit No. 246 of 1978.

(2.) The instant suit has been filed by the opposite parties against the petitioners for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for compensation in respect of the properties mentioned in the Schedule to the plaint (herein-after referred to as the suit property). In course of hearing of the said suit, the petitioners sought to admit into evidence a certified copy of a registered deed dated 17th of December, 1973 executed by the vendor of the opposite parties in favour of the villagers of Bonekathi entrusting the villagers of village Bonekathi with the administration of the Math standing on the suit property. A notice was served upon the opposite parties requiring them to produce the said original deed. The opposite parties did not produce the said deed. In fact, the opposite party No. 1, in his deposition, stated that the said deed was not in his custody. But he did not deny the existence of the said deed. The defendant No. 2, in his deposition, stated that the said decd was not in their custody. He, however, deposed that he was present at the time of execution of the said deed and proved the execution of the said deed. It appears from record that the petitioners filed an application on 11th of February, 1982 praying for examination of a person from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Midnapore to prove the certified copy of the deed on production of the original volume. The opposite parties, however, objected to the admissibility of the certified copy of the said deed in evidence on the ground that the relevant volume was not called for from the office of the Sub Registrar. The learned Munsif, 2nd Court at Midnapore, by his order dated 8th of May, 1986, held that the certified copy of the deed in question should be marked as exhibit after production of the relevant Volume from the registry office. By an order dated 12th of May, 1986, the learned Munsif closed the evidence from the side of the defendants and gave liberty to the petitioners to prove the certified copy of the said deed in question by adducing further evidence at the time of argument. By a petition dated 14th of May, 1986, the petitioners prayed that as the original deed not having been traceable or lost and the execution of the relevant deed having been proved by production of the certified copy thereof, the same may be admitted into evidence. The learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Midnapore, after hearing the parties, rejected the said petition holding inter alia that the certified copy of the deed in question could not be admitted into evidence without the production of the original nor there was any foundation laid for such non-production of the original from the registry office.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid three orders of the learned Munsif, 2nd Court at Midnapore, the petitioners have come up to this Court in revision.