Point of Law: Order 32 Rule 12 of Code of Civil Procedure is quoted course to be followed by minor plaintiff or applicant on attaining majority.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.09.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sivasagar, in Title Suit No. 03/2021, allowing the petition, dated 30.04.2022, filed by the plaintiffs under Order XIII Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereby allowed the plaintiff to produce and exhibit 5 (five) numbers of documents after filing of evidence on affidavit which were not filed at the time of filing of the suit and prior to the filing of the written statement.

3. The respondent, as a plaintiff, filed a Title Suit No. 03/2021 before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sivasagar, against the present petitioners/defendants praying for a decree for declaring the plaintiff as the illegitimate daughter of Late Brojen Baruah claiming ¼ share of the service benefit of her father- Late Brojen Baruah, who was a Senior HR Executive of ONGCL, and also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking the other service benefits due to the deceased- Late Brojen Baruah. The plaintiff claimed herself to be the illegitimate daughter of Late Brojen Baruah and therefore, she claimed that she is entitled to ¼ share of the service benefits of Late Brojen Baruah. The plaintiff/respondent also filed a Misc. (J) Case No. 05/2021 praying for ad-interim temporary injunction restraining the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 & 3 from releasing the terminal service benefit of the deceased Brojen Baruah to the present petitioners/defendants. However, the learned Court below was pleased to reject the petition of the respondent/plaintiff.

4. Accordingly, the petitioners/defendants contested the case by filing their written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiffs stating that there is no cause of action of the suit and the defendants accordingly prayed for dismissal of the same. The case proceeded accordingly and at the stage of evidence of P.W.-2, one petition was filed praying for allowing to produce or exhibit 5 (five) numbers of documents which were already exhibited on the evidence of affidavit of P.W.-1. In the said petition, it was claimed by the present respondent/plaintiff that she was minor at the time of filing the suit and she was duly represented by her natural guardian mother. But, as the respondent/plaintiff became major and after attaining 18 years of age, she obtained some certificates and accordingly prayed to exhibit those certificates at the time of evidence. Against the said petition, the present petitioners/defendants had filed their written objection on 04.06.2022. But, after hearing both the parties, the learned Court below, vide order dated 26.09.2022, allowed the petition of the plaintiff to produce and exhibit 5 (five) numbers of documents at the stage of evidence.

5. On being aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sivasagar, in Title Suit No. 03/2021, the petitioner preferred this revision petition.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the application for production of documents at the stage of evidence cannot be allowed in a routine manner and bringing the documents at the stage of hearing will cause prejudice to the petitioners/defendants as they have lost the opportunity to raise objection or to take plea against those documents at the time of filing their written objection. Further it is submitted that the suit, being proceeded under representation, and hence the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition on her personal capacity until and unless she obtain leave from the Court to proceed with the suit by herself on the ground of her becoming major under appropriate provision of law and therefore, the said petition for production of documents is liable to be dismissed.