Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010142232025 2025:GAU-AS:10231 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/247/2025 MD MATIUR RAHMAN AND ANR S/O LATE AMIR ALI, R/O VILL AND P.O.- ADABARI, MOUZA- PUB BARKHETRI, P.S.- MUKALMUA, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-781126 2: MD AMJAD ALI S/O LATE AMIR ALI R/O VILL AND P.O.- ADABARI MOUZA- PUB BARKHETRI P.S.- MUKALMUA DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN-78112 VERSUS MD ABDULLA ALI @ ABDULLA ALI AHMED S/O LATE AMIR ALI, R/O VILL AND P.O.- ADABARI, MOUZA- PUB BARKHETRI, P.S.- MUKALMUA, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-781126 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R Deka, S I AKAND Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 06.08.2025 Heard Mr. S.I. Akand, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Page No.# 2/3 petitioners have put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 23.04.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Nalbari (trial court hereinafter), in Title Suit No. 106/2014. 3. Mr. Akand, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, as plaintiffs, had instituted one title suit, being Title Suit No. 106/2014, wherein he had exhibited the certified copy of the sale deed, bearing No. 243/1993, dated 14.07.1993, Sl. No. 311. But, they could not produce the volume of the said sale deed for ends of justice and therefore, he filed one petition, being Petition No. 1981/24, under Order 16 Rule 1 & 6 of the CPC. But, the learned trial court, vide impugned order dated 23.04.2025, had rejected the petition on the ground that the evidence of the defendant’s side has already been closed on 26.11.2024, and the matter was fixed for argument on 14.05.2025. 3.1. Further submission of Mr. Akand is that the petitioners/plaintiffs had failed to mention the reason, which prevented them from filing the Petition No. 1981/24 prior to closing of the evidence and also on the ground that in the amended plaint, the petitioners/plaintiffs have not mentioned about the original sale deed, which was not in his possession. Mr. Akand also submits that though the evidence of the defendant side has already been closed and the matter was listed for argument, the case was adjourned by the learned trial court. 3.2. Mr. Akand further submits that unless the petitioners are allowed to exhibit the original sale deed by calling the volume book from the office of the Sub- Registrar, Mukalmua, the petitioners will suffer serious prejudice and will not be able to establish his case and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 4. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record Page No.# 3/3 and also perused the impugned order dated 23.04.2025, passed by the learned trial court. 5. It appears that the evidence of the defendant side has already been closed and the matter was fixed for argument, but the argument has not yet been heard. It also appears that certified copy of the sale deed was exhibited before the learned trial court, but the petitioners could not produce the volume of the said sale deed due to inadvertence. It is to be noted here that fair trial is a fundamental right and in fair trial, fair opportunity has to be afforded to the parties to establish their case and denial of fair opportunity would amount to denial of fair trial and violation of fundamental right. 6. Considering above and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record and also the relevant provision, i.e. Rule 6 of Order 16 of the CPC, this court is of the view that unless the petitioners are allowed to exhibit the original sale deed by calling the volume of the same from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mukalmua, the petitioners will suffer serious prejudice and therefore, it is inclined to allow this petition. The impugned order dated 23.04.2025, passed by the learned trial court accordingly set aside and quashed. 7. Consequent upon, the learned trial court shall call for the volume book of the sale deed No. 243/1993 from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mukalmua and thereafter, proceed to hear the matter in accordance with law. 8. In terms of above, this CRP stands disposed of. The petitioners have to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant