CRP 341/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners as w ell as Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondents except respondent No.1(d). It appears from the order dated 11.06.2010 passed by the Lawazima Court that the respondent No.1(d) has been served. Despite such service the said respo ndent has not entered appearance. The petitioners who are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No.225/2004, by the present petition, have challenged the order dated 13.08.2007 passed by the lear ned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.1, Karimganj (now Munsiff), rejecting the appl ication filed by the petitioners praying for a direction to the persons named in Schedule-A to the said application to produce the original of the sale deed bea ring Registration No.2122 dated 01.03.1984 and to call for the records of T.I. r egister in respect of the said sale deed from the office of the Sub-Registrar, K arimganj. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that sin ce the defendant No.1(c), who has been examined as DW-1 by the defendant, in his examination-in-chief has denied the execution of the said sale deed dated 01.03 .1984 by his father, it has become necessary to file an application praying for a direction to the persons named in Schedule-A to produce the original of the sa id sale deed, which is in their custody and also to direct the Sub-Registrar, Ka rimganj to produce the T.I. register to prove the signature of the executant as well as the signature of the DW-1 who stated to have identified the thumb impres sion of his father. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners th at though the learned Court below has rejected the prayer made in the said appli cation for directing the persons named in Schedule-A to produce the original, no thing has been said relating to the prayer for calling the T.I. register from th e Sub-Registry. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this Court, the learned Court below may be directed to pass an order calling the T.I. register from the Sub-Registry. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents supporting the order d ated 13.08.2007 submits that the learned Court below has rightly rejected the ap plication filed at the very belated stage, which requires no interference. It appears that by the impugned order dated 13.08.2007, the learned Cour t below has rejected the prayer for directing the persons named in Schedule-A to produce the original, the same being in a belated stage. The learned Court belo w, however, did not consider the prayer made by the petitioners to call for the T.I. register. In view of the above, this revision petition is disposed of with a direc tion to the learned Court below to consider the prayer of the petitioners in so far as calling of the T.I. register from the Sub-Registry as mentioned in Schedu le-B of the application filed under Section 151 CPC and to pass necessary order. It is needless to say that the order dated 13.08.2007 in so far as the rejectio n of the prayer to call for the original of the sale deed from the Schedule-A ha s not been interfered with, as the said application was filed at the very belate d stage. The learned Court below is directed to consider and pass the order, as aforesaid, within 1(one) month from the date of appearance of the parties. The p arties are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 08.12.2010. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No cost.