RAMESH CHANDRA DUBEY Vs. KAMAL SINGH SURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) The petitioners, by way of filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for quashing and setting aside order dated 7.4.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Deoghar, whereby, the petition of the plaintiff -petitioner for accepting the original sale deed No. 5065, which is already exhibited as Ext.- 7 in Title Suit No. 138/2008, was dismissed.

(3.) As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent by referring order dated 7.4.2011, pointed out that the Court below has not committed any error while passing the said order. Learned counsel for the respondent by referring counter affidavit filed by the defendant and by referring order dated 16.8.2004 (Annexure-C) pointed out that the court below has rightly rejected the application dated 2.6.04 filed by the present petitioners. It is further submitted that the court below after careful consideration of the rival submissions made by the parties including the judgment cited by the counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners, rejected the said application on merits. It is further submitted that the said order was not challenged by the petitioners and the said order has attained its finality. It is further submitted that the petitioners were granted permission by the Court for withdrawal of the original sale deed so as to enable them to produce before the another court in Title Suit No. 138/08 but instead of producing the said document before the said Court, the petitioners approached the office of the Sub-Registrar and completed the formalities of making payment of deficit stamp and thereafter they produced the same before the learned Sub Judge in Title Suit No. 138/08. It is further submitted that the petitioners have made an attempt to circumvent the previous order passed in the proceeding and thereby the petitioners have committed fraud with the court. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention to this Court to the provision contained in Order XIII Rule 4, whereby the procedure for endorsement of document submitted in evidence has been prescribed. It is further submitted that once the document is admitted and exhibited or it is signed or made initial by the learned Judge and therefore, it is not legally permissible for any of the parties to make any change in the said document. It is further submitted that in the instant case, under the pretext of producing the said document before the another court , the petitioners have withdrawn the said document and the said permission has been misused by the petitioners and thereby the petitioners have committed fraud to the court. It is further submitted that there is no merit in the petition and the same may be rejected.