U.B. Saha, J.

1. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 23.6.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Petition No. 1144 of 2010 arising out of title suit No. 171 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the opposite parties-Defendants under order VIII, Rule 1(A)(3), read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure was allowed.

2. Heard Mr. S. Ali, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. G.N Sahewalla, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

3. As agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, this revision petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal at this stage.

4. The facts giving rise to filing of the instant revision petition, in brief, are, thus:

The present Petitioner, as Plaintiff, instituted the aforesaid title suit No. 171 of 2006 against the opposite parties-Defendants praying for declaration of right, title, interest, recovery of possession and permanent injunction, which is pending before the learned Civil Judge, i.e., the trial court. The opposite parties-Defendants after receiving the summons appeared before the learned trial court and contested the suit by filing their written statements and adducing some documents. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial court framed issues and the respective parties adduced their evidences before it in support of their respective pleadings to prove their case. The opposite parties-Defendants 1 to 3 though took a plea in their written statements that the sale deed No. 1834 of 1997 is a fraudulent document, but in support of such plea, neither they submitted any document nor disclosed where the said document was available. After closer of the examination of the witnesses, the case was fixed on 26.8.2009 for hearing final arguments of both the parties.

5. It is also stated by the Petitioner Plaintiff that on 4.11.2009, the opposite parties-Defendants filed four petitions No. 2885/09, 2886/09, 2887/09 and 2888/09 before the trial court. The petition No. 2885/09 was filed for filing of two documents, viz., the sale deeds No. 7461/83 and 7462/83, the petition No. 2886/09 was for framing of additional issue, the petition No. 2887/09 was for calling records of the title suit No. 266 of 2003 and petition No. 2888/09 was for amendment of the written statement, respectively. Out of the aforesaid four petitions, two petitions, i.e., the petition for framing of additional issues and the petition for calling the records of the title suit were allowed by the trial court on concession of the Plaintiff Petitioner and other two petitions were rejected being opposed by the Plaintiff Petitioner vide order dated 25.11.2009. Against the said order dated 25.11.2009, two revision petitions No. CRP 452/09 and 453/09 were filed before this Court by the opposite parties Defendants which were rejected/dismissed vide order dated 27.1.2010.

6. When the revision petitions were pending before this Court for some times, the argument of the parties could not be completed and ultimately the date was fixed for final argument of the parties on 28.4.2010. On that date, the opposite parties-Defendants again filed a petition under order VIII, Rule 1(A)(3), read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, praying for 'admitting the death certificate into evidence' and asking Sri Anil Das, son of Gaur Mohan Das to produce the original copy of the same before the court and if necessary, to examine him to prove the death certificate.

Gour Mohan Das (since deceased) was the vendor as well as executor of the sale deed No. 1834 of 1997 dated 3.4.1997. The Plaintiff Petitioner upon receipt of the aforesaid petition tiled their written objection and the date was fixed for hearing on the aforesaid petition on 11.5.2010. On that date, the opposite parties-Defendants filed another application with a prayer for allowing them to produce the photocopy of the death certificate of deceased