BEGUM BAHAR Vs. MOTIUR RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under article 227 of the Constitution of India, defendants in Title Suit No. 340 of 2014 of the Court of learned Munisff No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahait has challenged the order dated 10.03.2014 whereby prayer of the petitioners / defendants for examining one Suratan Nessa as DW3 was rejected by the learned trial Court.

(2.) Predecessor of the opposite parties No. 1(a) to 1(f) as sole plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 340/2014 in the Court of learned Munsiff No. 3, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati against the predecessor of the present petitioner and others praying for a decree for declaration of his right of pre-emption in respect of Schedule-B land alongwith other prayers including prayer for adjudging sale deed No. 3766/2009 dated 01.04.2009 as null and void, illegal, inoperative, etc. On being summoned the defendants appeared and by filing written statement contested the claim of the plaintiff not only in regard to pre-emption but also as to legality and validity of the aforesaid sale deed. Issues were framed and parties were put to prove their respective cases. Plaintiff examined his witnesses and thereafter the case was fixed for evidence by the defendants' side. Defendants filed the list of witnesses which did not contain the name of Suratan Nessa. But after DW1 and DW2 were examined, the DW2 was cross-examined and discharged and while cross-examination of DW1 is pending, defendants filed an application on 28.09.2012 praying for examining Suratan Nessa as DW3 in this case on the ground that she was the identifier in the concerned sale deed. Plaintiff filed objection against this application and the learned Court after hearing both sides passed the impugned order on 10.03.2014 observing that the application for examining Suratan Nessa as DW3 having been filed late and understandably to fill-up the lacuna the same was liable to be rejected and it was accordingly rejected. The learned Court also held that the defendants were at liberty to file such an application at the threshold and in that event the case would have been different.

(3.) I have heard Mr. R.P.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. F.U. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the opposite-parties. I have also perused the relevant documents placed by the learned counsel for the parties.