JUDGMENT :

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed assailing the impugned order dated 01.04.2021 passed in T.S. No. 545/2007 by which the learned Munsiff No. 2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati rejected the petition filed under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the CPC read with Section 151 of the said Code.

3. The background facts:

The background fact of the present litigation can be summarized as follows:

(I) The petitioner as plaintiff instituted a suit being T.S. No. 545/2007 before the learned court of Munsiff No. 2, Kamrup at Guwahati praying for a decree of declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of khas possession, cancellation of a sale deed being sale deed No. 3106/2001 dated 02.04.2001 and another sale deed being sale deed No. 936/02 dated 08.02.2002 and for permanent injunction.

(II) It is an admitted fact that at the time of filing of the plaint, the plaintiff had not annexed any document, which the plaintiff relied on in support of his case.

(III) On notice being served, the defendant appeared and filed written statement.

(IV) Thereafter, issues were framed and plaintiff as PW-1 filed evidence on affidavit on 03.11.2009 alongwith 25 numbers of exhibits and the said plaintiff was cross-examined on 20.02.2010, 18.03.2010 and 29.04.2010.

(V) Though those documents were exhibited and defendant cross-examined on the aforesaid documents, however on an objection raised by the defendant on the admissibility of the said exhibits for the reason that those were not part of the plaint nor those were given at the time of fixing a date for issues and document, and accordingly the learned trial court under its order dated 14.06.2010 directed that the objection raised by the defendant will be considered at the time of argument.

(VI) Thereafter, the remaining plaintiff’s witnesses were cross-examined. Defendants laid its evidences as DWs and plaintiff also cross-examined those defendant’s witnesses.

(VII) Thereafter, 04.02.2020 at the time of argument the plaintiff side filed the aforesaid application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 of the CPC with a prayer to accept those documents which were exhibited alongwith the evidence of PW-1.

(VIII) The defendant side filed objection to the said application and on the basis of said application and objection the learned trial court passed the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff to accept those documents as exhibits.

4. Submission of petitioner:

Mr. D Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits the following:

(I) Though the plaintiff did not annex any document alongwith the plaint, however, there were mentions of those documents in the plaint as well as there are reflections in the pleadings that the plaintiff relied on those documents.

(II) It is further submitted by Mr. Mazumdar that the averments made in the plaint are based only on those exhibits and it will be discernible from the evidence on affidavit that the those documents were annexed in support of the pleadings made in the plaint as well as on the evidence on affidavit. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the defendant, if those documents are accepted.

(III) Mr. Mazumdar further argues that the plaintiff had not raised any objection in the written statement rather they had filed the written statement refuting those pleadings made in the plaint based on those documents which are exhibited along with the affidavit. Therefore, in that count also no prejudice has been caused no prejudice shall be caused if such documents are allowed to be accepted as exhibit.

(IV) He further submits that the procedure is handmaid of justice and procedure and technical hurdle shall not be allowed to come in a way of the court while