The court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing the admissibility of certified documents under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act and denying that the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to rebut evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Md. Asghar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 1 and Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 in both these cases.

2. Both these cases are arising out of the same suit, in view of that both the cases are being heard together with the consent of the parties.

3. Both these petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in C.M.P. No. 475 of 2024, prayer is made for quashing of the orders dated 26.06.2023 and 19.03.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-V, Deoghar and learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-III respectively in Original Suit No. 24 of 2007, whereby the learned court has been pleased to fix the case for final arguments.

4. In C.M.P. No. 597 of 2024, prayer is made for setting aside the order dated 10.04.2024, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Deoghar, in Civil Mis. (Transfer) Petition No. 08 of 2024, whereby, the petition for transfer of the case to another court has been rejected by the learned court.

5. Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Original Suit No. 24 of 2007 was instituted by the petitioner for specific performance of contract. He submits that the defendant filed a petition on 15.02.2010 for seeking leave for exhibiting certificate of Central Bank of India dated 04.02.2010, which was allowed by the learned court with right to rebut the same. He submits that in absence of providing opportunity of rebuttal, the learned court has fixed the case for final argument, in view of that the said order, by which, the argument was directed to be placed is bad, as the petitioner has not been given the opportunity to rebut the same. He further submits that on the grounds mentioned in the petition, the transfer petition was filed and the learned Principal District Judge-Deoghar has erroneously dismissed the same with cost. On these grounds, he submits that all the impugned orders are bad in law and the same may kindly be set aside.

6. Md. Asghar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 1 in both the cases draws the attention of the court to the petition dated 15.07.2016, contained in Annexure-2 series in CMP No. 475 of 2024 and submits that the leave for filing the document was sought by the petitioner, which was allowed by the learned court by order dated 03.04.2023, as contained in Annexure-5 in the said CMP. He submits that the erroneous ground has been taken in this case to the effect that without allowing the same, the learned court has fixed the case for final argument. He further draws the attention of the court to Section 4 of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 and submits that mode of proof of entries in the bankers’ books and any certified copy are the evidence in a legal proceeding. He further submits that even if the further document, the petitioner is having, he can file the same before the learned court, which can be considered as an evidence by the learned court. He then submits that however, it is not disclosed that the petitioner has filed any further document before the learned court or not. On these grounds, he submits that the learned court has rightly passed the aforesaid orders.

7. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 in both the cases draws the attention of the court to the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Deoghar dated 10.04.2024 contained in Annexure-6 and submits that the learned District Judge has discussed entire aspect of the matter thread bare and answer on the point of transfer of the case. He