MD. MODASWAR HUSSAIN Vs. AMJAD SHEIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 12.7.2005 passed by learned Sub -Judge -V, Pakur in Title Suit No. 23 of 1989 whereby the Court below has refused to allow the petitioner to bring on record the sale -deed on the ground that he has already closed his evidence and there was inordinate delay in bringing the said document on record.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that he could not file the said document as the same was mis -placed and could not be traced earlier. The petitioner, then, obtained the certified copy of the same recently and filed the same. It has been further stated that the said document is necessary to decide the controversy between the parties and in absence of the said document, the interest of the defendant No. 1 petitioner shall be highly prejudiced. Learned Court below, without taking into consideration the vital evidentiary value of the said document in deciding the controversy involved in the suit between the parties, has mechanically rejected the prayer of the petitioner only on the ground of delay. Learned Court below also failed to consider that the petitioner's interest shall be greatly prejudiced if the said sale -deed is not admitted in evidence.

(3.) CONSIDERING the submissions made by the learned Counsel and the facts and material on record, I find that the Court below has not properly considered the petitioner's application and has rejected the same mainly on the ground of delaying bringing the document on record. The trial Court should not ordinarily refused to admit an evidence only on the ground of delay if evidence is of vital importance for complete and effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties. Denial! of material evidence may affect the very decision and due administration of justice and thereby frustrate the ends of justice. Issue of such importance require due application of mind on all the relevant aspects. In the instant case learned Court below has given lop sided consideration and has rejected the petitioner's prayer on technical ground. In view of the aforesaid reason, the impugned order dated 12.7.2005 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court below for a fresh consideration and decision in accordance with law.