MATHIAS @ MATHIYUS MURMU Vs. ISMAIL HANSDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners is absent.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondents (original plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 11 of 2006, who has submitted that looking to the irrelevancy in the deposition, given by the witness of the original plaintiffs, the trial court has rightly rejected the deposition, given by the witness of the plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule VII of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Sub -Judge -I, Dumka, in Title Suit No. 11 of 2006 dated 5th July, 2008, at Annexure -2 to the memo of petition, is true, correct, legal and in consonance with the facts and law and hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) AS a cumulative effect, I hereby quash and set aside the order dated 5th July, 2008, passed by the learned SubJudge -I, Dumka, in Title Suit No. 11 of 2006 and I hereby direct the trial court to dispose of the suit (Title Suit No. 11 of 2006) as expeditiously as possible and practicable, on its own merits, and the contention of the original defendants/respondents raised about the evidentiary value of the deposition of the said witness will be considered at the time of final hearing, without being influenced by the interim order dated 5th July, 2008 ana without being influenced by the order, passed by this Court.