1. This matter has been taken up for hearing at the admission stage. I have heard Mr. T. Roy, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Sarma, the learned Counsel for the respondent.

2. The order dated 02.11.2016 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Cachar, Silchar, in T.S. No. 61/2011 is impugned in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by which the petition filed by the petitioners/defendants under section 30 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to call for the records and to order production of two registered deeds from the Sub-Registry, Cachar, was rejected.

3. Owing to the nature of reliefs as sought for in this revision, it is not deemed necessary to burden this judgment with the respective pleadings of the parties.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 02.11.2016, which was the date fixed for filing of evidence-on-affidavit by the defendants, the petitioners filed a petition under section 30 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code containing the prayer to pass an order to call for the two registered deeds from the Sub- Registry at Cachar and to direct the concerned to produce the said records and to depute one capable person to prove the genuine one.

5. The learned Munsiff No. 1, Silchar by an order dated rejected the said petition, which was numbered as Petition No. 181/07 dated 02.11.2016 and closed the evidence of the defendant’s side. Aggrieved by the said order dated 02.11.2016, the present application has been filed.

6. As per the said impugned order, the evidence of the defendant’s side was closed by order dated 06.11.2013 and the suit was posted for argument on 29.11.2013. The original defendant thereafter, approached this Court by filing CRP No. 111/2013 challenging the order dated 06.11.2013. During the pendency of the said revision, the original defendant had died and the present petitioners were substituted in place of the deceased defendant. After substitution was allowed, the present petitioners were allowed to file their written statement and by filing petition No. 76/22, the petitioners made a prayer before the learned trial court to allow them to adduce defendant’s witness. The said CRP No. 111/13 was disposed off by this Court by order dated 10.06.2016 by directing the learned trial court to take up the herein before mentioned petition No. 76/22 for consideration.

7. Thereafter, by order dated 09.08.2016, the learned trial court allowed petition No. 76/22 on condition that the petitioners-defendants shall adduce their evidence on the next date i.e. 17.09.2016. However, on 17.09.2016, the petitioners herein did not examine their witness but prayed for adjournment on the ground that they did not receive the certified copies required for giving evidence. As per order dated 17.09.2016, the learned trial court held that although the prayer for adjournment did not deserve to be allowed, but for the ends of justice, the adjournment was reluctantly allowed with a cost of Rs. 500/- as condition precedent, and also with a condition that the petitioners- defendants shall adduce evidence without fail on the next date, i.e. 02.11.2016. However, on 02.11.2016, the petitioners instead of adducing their evidence, took up a plea that they had applied for certified copies which are yet to be received.

8. The learned trial Court had held that the petitioners had not disclosed that for which document, they had applied for the certified copies or the date when such copies were applied for, or for what reasons the copies were not received by the petitioners. It was further held that the records does not reveal why the petitioners could not make prayer for production of the documents at an early stage or on 17.09.2016, even when they knew that they were required to adduce their evidence on 17.09.2016 without fail. Hence, by arriving at a finding that the petitioners were ne