High Court
Case Details
CRP 392/2012 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs and Dr. B . Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No.8/proforma defendant No.8. The o ther respondents have not entered appearance despite service. The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs, by the present petition has challenged the order dated 30th May, 2012 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Cachar at Sil char in Title Suit No.94/2005 allowing the application filed by the defendant No .1, Ghungoor Co-operative Society Limited and the proforma defendant No.8, the A ssistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies in the district of Cachar, whereby and whereunder the prayer made to call for the 6(six) original sale deeds, as me ntioned in the said application, has been allowed. Referring to the impugned order dated 30th May, 2012, it has been submitted by M r. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners that since the original docume nts sought to be called for have neither been listed in the list of documents or annexed to the pleadings nor any leave has been prayed for, the learned Court b elow ought not to have granted the prayer to call for the original sale deeds me ntioned in the application filed by the defendant Nos.5 and 8. It has further been
Legal Reasoning
submitted that in any case, the learned Court below in the absence of any pleadi ngs in respect of execution of the sale deeds at serial Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 of the list appended to the application, ought not to have passed an order summoning t he aforesaid original sale deeds. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that t he impugned order needs interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Artic le 227 of the Constitution of India. Dr. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8, on the other hand, supporting the order dated 30th May, 2012 has submitted that it is evident from the said order that there are necessary pleadings relating to the execution of such sale deeds in the written statement. It has also been submitted that in an y case, no prejudice has been caused to the plaintiffs in passing the order date d 30th May, 2012, which has rightly been passed so that the defendants could pro ve the pleadings in the written statement filed. I have perused the pleadings in the plaint as well as the written statement, apa rt from the application filed by the defendant Nos.5 and 8 to call for the 6(six ) original sale deeds, apart from the objection filed thereto. Perusal of the pleadings in the written statement filed by the defendant No.5, G hungoor Co-operative Society Limited, reveals that while there is pleadings rela ting to the execution of the sale deeds dated 6th July, 1959 and 28th August, 19 61, there is, however, absolutely no pleading relating to the execution of any s ale deeds dated 1st July, 1959 and 28th August, 1954. In paragraph 22(l), the d efendant No.5, however, has pleaded that Ghungoor Co-operative Society was under liquidation and the liquidator has sold out the land in favour of the State of Assam. In the application filed under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC, the defendant Nos.5 and 8 p rayed for summoning the following 6(six) original sale deeds:- (cid:28)List of documents required to be summoned:- 1. Original of Sale Deed vide Deed No.1010 dated 06.07.59 of the office of the D eputy Registrar, Cachar (Registration) Md. Gulam Isdani Choudhury & & &..Purchaser Abdul Aziz & & &Seller -Vs- 2. Original of Sale Deed vide Deed No.1786 dated 28.08.61 of the office of the D eputy Registrar, Cachar (Registration) Silchar South Marketing Co. Society Ltd. & & &..Purchaser Gulam Isdani Choudhury (1 Bigha, 11 Kathas, 10 Chattaks, 7 Gondas of land) &. & &Seller -Vs- 3. Original of Sale Deed vide Deed No.999 dated 01.07.1959 of the office of the Deputy Registrar, Cachar (Registration) The Ghungoor Co-operative bank Ltd. & & &..Purchaser Gulam Isdani Choudhury (16 Kathas of land) -Vs- & & &. Seller 4. Original of Sale Deed vide Deed No.1205 dated 01.09.87 of the office of the D eputy Registrar, Cachar (Registration) Sate of Assam & & &..Purchaser
Legal Reasoning
Sri Anil Kumar Choudhury (liquidater) -Vs- & & &. Seller 5. Original of Sale Deed vide Deed No.1376 dated 28.08.54 of the office of the D eputy Registrar, Cachar (Registration) Md. Abdul Aziz & & &..Purchaser -Vs- Sri Basarat Ali 6. Original of the Sale Deed vide Deed No.1206 dated 01.09.87 of the office of t he Deputy Registrar, Cachar (Registration) State of Assam & & &. Seller & & &..Purchaser -Vs- Anil Kumar Choudhury (Liquidater) & & &. Seller (cid:29) As noticed above, while there was pleading relating to the execution of a sale d eed as mentioned in serial Nos.1 and 2 above, there is absolutely no pleading re lating to execution of the sale deeds as mentioned in serial Nos.3 and 5. There is, however, mention of sale of lands in favour of the State of Assam in the wr itten statement filed by the respondent No.5, which may corresponds to the sale deeds mentioned at serial Nos.4 and 6. Admittedly the defendant No.5 neither enclosed the copy of the said sale deeds a longwith the pleadings nor submitted any list of documents. However, in the abs ence of the same, the Court undoubtedly has the jurisdiction to grant leave for production of such records at the subsequent stage, if the same is considered to be necessary for deciding the dispute between the parties effectively and compl etely. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the learned Cou rt below ought not to have passed the order summoning the original sale deeds me ntioned at serial Nos.3 and 5 of the application filed under Order 13 Rule 10 CP C, there being no pleadings at all in the written statement filed by the defenda nt No.5 in respect of execution of such sale deeds. The impugned order dated 30 th May, 2012 in so far as summoning the original sale deeds at serial Nos.3 and 5 of the aforesaid application stands set aside. The order relating to the summ oning of sale deeds mentioned at serial Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6, however, is maintaine d. The revision petition is disposed of. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 1st April, 2013.