Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J.

1. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is plaintiff in Title Suit No. 13 of 2004, has put to challenge the order, dated 02.07.2008, passed, in the said suit, by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karimganj, whereby the plaintiff-petitioner's petition, filed in the said suit, seeking to allow him to adduce evidence in support of the written statement, which the petitioner, as plaintiff, had filed against the counter-claim of the defendant No. 3 in the said suit, has been rejected.

MATERIAL FACTS:

Before entering into the discussion of the law governing the questions, which this application, made under Article 227, has raised, it is necessary to take note, in a nutshell, of the material facts giving rise to the present application. The material facts are as under:

(i) The present petitioner, as plaintiff, instituted Title Suit No. 13 of 2004 aforementioned against the respondent praying for decree for declaration of his rights and interest in the suit property created due to investments made on development, construction and renovation of the suit property and also for a declaration that the deed of partition, which the defendants have executed, is collusive, illegal, mala fide and not binding upon the plaintiff, the said deed being contrary to the agreement, dated 01.02.2002, executed between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1, and the power of attorney, dated 30.01.2002, executed by the defendant No. 1, in favour of the plaintiff, authorizing allowing him to look after Bharati Press situated on the suit land, the case of the plaintiff being, in brief, thus:

(i) The plaintiff is a monthly tenant under the defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit property on a monthly rental of Rs. 2,000/-, commencing from 01.02.2002, with provisions contained in the agreement for renewal of tenancy. Before creation of tenancy, defendant No. 1 executed, on 30.01.2002, a registered power of attorney, in favour of the plaintiff, authorizing him to look after Bharati Press, situated over the suit land. Based on the power of attorney, plaintiff made substantial investments on development and renovation of the suit property. The defendant No. 3 made an attempt to encroach upon the suit property; hence, the plaintiff had to institute a suit, being Title Suit No. 15 of 2004, in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karimganj, for declaration that he is a monthly tenant under the defendant No. 1 and also for granting permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 3 from encroaching upon the suit property and an injunction was accordingly granted restraining the defendant No. 3 from encroaching upon the suit property. The plaintiff came to learn that suppressing the terms of the said agreement of the tenancy, dated 30.01.2002, and the said power of attorney, dated 31.01.2002, the defendant No. 1, in collusion with the other defendants including the defendant No. 3, has executed, on 27.01.2004, a registered partition deed, partitioning, amongst themselves, some immovable properties including the tenanted premises ignoring the investments, which the plaintiff had made on the development and renovation of the suit property. As the financial investments made by the petitioner on the development of the suit property had created bona fide interest and right over the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and since the partition-deed had created a cloud on the right and interest, which the plaintiff had so acquired over the suit property, the plaintiff brought the present suit, namely, Title Suit No. 13 of 2004.

(ii) The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement asserting that the said power of attorney was a forged document. The defendant No. 3 filed a separate written statement denying and disputing the plaintiff's claim over the suit property and describing him as a stranger to the suit property. Along with his written statement, the defendant