Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the opposite party. Order dated 01.07.2015 passed by learned Munsiff, North Salmara, Abhayapuri in Title Suit No. 18/2009 has been called in question in the present revision petition. By that order the learned court refused to grant leave to the defendant for producing registered sale deed No. 212 dated 03.02.1997.

2. The sole opposite party, as plaintiff, instituted Title Suit No. 18/2009 in the court of learned Munsiff, North Salmara, praying for declaration of his right, title and interest and recovery of khas possession of the suit land further declaring that Udayasan Das, father of the plaintiff, was the exclusive owner in possession over the suit land. The defendants No. 1 to 5 filed a joint written statement denying the case of the plaintiff. They stated in paragraph 9 of the written statement that during the life time of Late Udayasan Das and Late Balai Chandra Das they jointly sold from Schedule ‘A’ land a plot measuring 3 K 11 L to Sri Phonindra Nath Das vide registered sale deed No. 212 dated 03.02.1997 from patta No. 155.

3. In course of trial, plaintiff exhibited a number of documents and thereafter the defendants filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure on 27.05.2015 craving leave of the court to produce three more documents. One of the documents was copy of jamabandi of surveyed village of Goalpara, Part-IV in respect of patta No. 116 and the other is certified copy of registered sale deed No. 1818 dated 28.08.2008. The defendants also made a prayer for adducing registered sale deed No. 212 dated 03.02.1997 on record as document No. 2. In the body of the application it was stated that all the documents were handed over to the engaged counsel for production before the court in appropriate time but the learned counsel for reasons best known to him did not produce the same. However, after change of advocate and engagement of new set of advocates, it came to light that the aforesaid documents though necessary for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute, yet the same was not produced by the learned counsel. Accordingly, leave was craved for production of the same under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff, by filing an objection on 01.07.2015, contested the prayer and claimed that the defendants actually did not hand over the documents to their previous engaged advocate and that is why the earlier engaged lawyer did not file the same before the court although he had filed several petitions to submit original documents. After considering the objection raised, the learned trial court by impugned order dated 01.07.2015 disposed of the same by holding that documents No. 1 and 3 having been already brought on record by the plaintiff, there is no question of any prejudice to him even if the defendants have produced the same again. But in regard to document No. 2 i.e., registered sale deed No. 212 dated 03.02.1997, the learned court was of the view that the defendants are not entitled to leave and accordingly this prayer was not allowed.

4. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 01.07.2015, it is the case of the petitioner that all the documents were handed over to the learned counsel in appropriate time but the learned counsel did not produce the same for reasons best known to him and it came to light only after advocate was changed and new advocates were engaged. The plaintiff has challenged the veracity of the statement by claiming that no such document was ever handed over to the learned counsel by the defendants. The question as to whether the defendants handed over a particular document to his counsel or not, is within the knowledge of the defendant and his counsel and apparently plaintiff cannot have any personal knowledge in regard thereto. Such a denial, therefore, is for the sake of denial only. The same is beyond the knowledge of the p