The delay in entering a sale deed in the volume book does not negate the right of premption, and the petitioner was not required to have due diligence or enquiry made regarding the entry of the sale deed in the volume book before filing the suit.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A. Sattar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. None appears on call for the other respondents.

2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 29.06.2022 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Darrang, Mangaldai [now renamed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Darrang, Mangaldai) in T.S. No. 32/2013. By the said order, application of the petitioner, who is the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 CPC and Section 57 of the Evidence Act which was registered as petition no. 2553/2020 dated 18.12.2020 was rejected.

3. In brief, the case of the petitioner-plaintiff is that he had filed a suit being T.S. 22/2012, renumbered as T.S. No. 32/2013 seeking premptory right under the principles of Mohammedan law in particular plot of land described in the schedule of the plaint. The petitioner claims that he is the ”Shafei-a-Sharik” in respect of the suit property and accordingly, the suit was filed, inter alia for pre-emption, recovery of possession, declaratory decree and further consequential orders. The respondents-defendants had contested the suit by filing written statement.

4. In course of time, issues were framed and the trial had began and the petitioner side had examined 4 (four) PWs. The PW-4, Smti Madhabi Kalita, who was the Senior Sub-Registrar, Mangaldai had stated in her examination-in-chief that “As the sale deed no. 2283 was called for by this Court, hence, contents of the same are not endorsed in the volume book, which is called for by the summons issued to me.”

5. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted an RTI query to the SPIO office of the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldai dated 10.01.2020 and in response to the same, along with the RTI reply, the petitioner claims to have been provided with the Search Report bearing no. DRD/07/2019/68 dated 04.03.2020. The contents of the said report is quoted below:

“SEARCH -REPORT

The Statutory records of this office duly searched in presence of Dr Imdadul Haque and found as follows:

1. The manual copy of Regd. Deeds in Volume/Books was stopped since 31-12- 2003.

2. The Registered Deeds have been kept in computer storage by since 03-01-2012.

3. The Registered Deeds (Backlog) have been computerized since 01-01-2004 to 31-12-2011 and works are under process which is yet to be completed.

Search Application No. 124/2020

Search by: Dr. Imdadul Hoque (Applicant)”

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of above, having seen that the original sale deed no. 2283 had not been entered in the volume book, which would mean that within the meaning of the Registration Act, 1908, the registration of the particular document is not complete. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner had filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 CPC and Section 57 of the Evidence Act seeking leave of the Court to file certain documents received through RTI. The learned Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 29.06.2022, had rejected the said application.

7. Submitting in favour of the impugned order, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and therefore, as there is no jurisdictional error, the same ought not to be interfered with. It is submitted that the Court had given reasons on each of the provisions under which the application was made by addressing the provisions of Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC read with Section 151 CPC as well as Section 57 of the Evidence Act.

8. It is also submitted that 5 (five) PWs were examined over a long period of time from 03.11.2018 to 13.02.2020, when the suit was fixed for further examination of DW-1 and at that belated stage, the said application was filed on 18.12.2020. Accordingly, she opposes the prayer.

9. It appears to the Court that in the present case in hand, a unique fact sit