IMPORTANT POINT
Plaintiffs must satisfy the Court that the documents sought to be produced could not be produced at the appropriate stage due to a valid reason.

JUDGMENT

1. Plaintiffs No. 2,3, 4(i), 4(ii), 4(iii), 4(iv), 5 and 6 in O.S. No. 9 of 2003 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Imphal West-II, are the petitioners in this revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. They are aggrieved by the dismissal of their application in Judl. Misc. Case No. 82 of 2018 (Ref: O.S. No. 9 of 2003), filed for producing additional documents and for recalling a witness on their behalf to adduce the same in evidence.

2. Order dated 11-12-2019 was passed in this revision, suspending further proceedings in O.S. No. 9 of 2003 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Imphal West - II. The order is still in operation.

3. Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioners; Mr. R.K. Milan, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 7 & 9; and Mr. Winner S., learned counsel, representing Mr. S. Jasobanta, learned counsel for the LRs of respondent No. 8.

4. O.S. No. 9 of 2003 was filed by the petitioners herein and another for a permanent injunction; demarcation; eviction, etc. The plaintiffs' evidence in the suit was originally fixed on 26-09-2005 but it commenced only on 25-11-2010 and concluded on 18-10-2011. The defendants' evidence was then closed on 19-06-2017. The case was fixed for final arguments, but the Trial Court had earlier passed order dated 10-03-2017 in Judl. Misc. Case No. 129 of 2015 permitting recall of the newly impleaded defendant No. 1A in the suit for examination as he had filed a written statement and documents, after deposing as DW2 on behalf of defendants No. 1 to 7. Further, by a separate order dated 10-03-2017 passed in Judl. Misc. Case No. 90 of 2016, the Trial Court permitted the plaintiffs to produce documents which were not in their possession at the time of filing of the suit, as they came into existence thereafter. The plaintiffs thereupon filed Judl. Misc. Case No. 139 of 2017 under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC seeking recall of a witness on their behalf to exhibit these additional documents. By order dated 13-07-2018, the Trial Court allowed the miscellaneous case and permitted recall of a witness on behalf of the plaintiffs only for the limited purpose of exhibiting the documents which were permitted to be produced, vide order dated 10-03-2017 passed in Judl. Misc. Case No. 90 of 2016.

5. Judl. Misc. Case No. 82 of 2018 was then filed by the plaintiffs in the suit seeking to produce some more documents, viz., (i) Dag Chitha of the suit land, and (ii) Jamabandi of the suit land - certified true copies in Photostat/xerox of the Original Survey Record, 1959, Directorate of Settlement & Land Records, Manipur. This miscellaneous case was filed in August, 2018. The plea of the plaintiffs therein was that these documents were not in their custodial possession at the time of filing of the suit and the copies were recently issued by the officials of the Directorate of Settlement & Land Records, Manipur. The defendants contested the miscellaneous case on the ground that the case was at the stage of final hearing and the documents, being old public documents, could have been obtained at the time of filing of the suit itself. Upon consideration of the matter, the Trial Court agreed with the stand of the defendants that the plaintiffs could have filed these documents within time. The Trial Court opined that the plaintiffs had failed to show good and sufficient cause as to why these documents could not be filed earlier and disallowed their miscellaneous case.

6. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel, would point out that the plaintiffs' witness who had been recalled for the purpose of adducing in evidence the additional documents that were already permitted to be produced, was yet to be examined and, therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have disallowed the fresh miscellaneous case filed by the plaintiffs for placing on record some more documents.

7. Per contra, Mr. R.K. Milan, learned counsel, would assert that the