AKABBAR ALI Vs. HABIBAR RAHMAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel representing the respondents.

(2.) This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner/defendant in Title Suit No. 52/2008 pending in the court of Munsiff, Abhayapuri, Bongaigaon, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09-06-2015 whereby the learned Trial Court had rejected the application dated 18-02-2015 filed by and on behalf of the petitioner/defendant under Order 13, Rule 2 CPC seeking leave to introduce the documents mentioned therein at a belated stage. In the application filed under Order 13, Rule 2 CPC the defendant/petitioner has contended that their elder brother late Nabi Hussain who is the only educated person in the family was taking steps in the suit on behalf of the defendants and as such all the original documents were lying in the custody of said Nabi Hussain. However, sometime in the first part of the year 2013 Nabi Hussain was murdered by some unidentified persons and since then the petitioner/defendant has been taking steps in the suit. After the death of Nabi Hussain the engaged lawyer had also returned the brief as a result of which a new set of lawyers had to be engaged by the defendants. It has been mentioned in the petition that defendant does not have any clue as to why the original documents of the tile in support of the claim of the defendants, which were lying in the custody of Nabi Hussain, had not been submitted by him before settlement of the issue as per requirement under Order 13, Rule 1 CPC.

(3.) While drawing the attention of this Court to the pleadings contained in the paragraph 16 and 17 of the written statement Ms. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by making the aforesaid application, the petitioner/defendant merely sought leave of the court to produce the certified copy of the registered deed of sale bearing No. 44/2004 as well as the copy of jamabandi issued by the office of the Sub-Registrar, North Salmara in support of their pleaded case. She submits that since the necessary pleadings in support of the aforesaid claim of the petitioner mentioning the document therein are already available in the written statement hence, there was no question of any prejudice being cause to the plaintiff/respondent if the prayer of the petitioner was allowed.