BHAGABATI CHAKRABORTY Vs. MITA MAITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises from the order dated 22.04.2013 and 27.11.2013 wherein the learned Court below has rejected the petitioner's prayer for calling for a relevant document from the Criminal Court so that the original deed could be proved and exhibited in the title suit, learned Court below vide order dated 27.11.2013 had rejected application of the petitioner/plaintiff on the ground that the case diary being a document of prosecution had no connection with the suit. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order the petitioner/plaintiff has appeared before this Court for her redress. It appears from the record that petitioner was directed to serve the copy of the revisional application upon the opposite parties but by Speed Post as well as upon the advocate appearing on behalf of them before the trial Court and after serving the same she filed affidavit of service which is taken on record. Since the defendants/opposite parties are reluctant to appear to so the matter is taken up for hearing in absence of them.

(2.) At the time of hearing of learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that if a vital document is lying in the custody of other authority by operation of law how could he produce the same. It appears from the plaint that she had mentioned about the alleged deed. In the list of witnesses she has mentioned that she wanted to examine the Investigating Officer of the criminal case.

(3.) On perusal of the plaint it appears to me that the case solely depends on the said deed on the basis of which she had claimed her title and interest. It also transpires from the plaint itself that criminal case was filed against her under Sec. 420, 465, 467, 468 and 419 of India Penal Code and the Police Officer has seized that original deed of purchase of the petitioner.