CRP 305/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MADAN B. LOKUR The grievance of the petitioner is with reference to the order dated 27. 7.2010 passed by the learned Munsiff No.3, Dhubri in Title Suit No.347 of 2006. The petitioner had filed the Title Suit for a declaration and recovery o f khas possession. Along with the plaint, the petitioner had also filed all the relevant documents including an Auction Purchase Certificate issued in favour of Saburuddin Ahmed, predecessor-in-interest of defendant No.5. The petitioner cla ims to be the purchaser of the suit property from the legal representatives of S aburuddin Ahmed. It appears that efforts were made by the petitioner to prove the Auction Purchase Certificate by serving summons on the office of the Deputy Commissione r, Dhubri. However, despite several attempts, the records were not produced by t he office of the Deputy Commissioner since they pertained to the year 1967 and 1 971 and were apparently not traceable. Under these circumstances, by an order dated 23.4.2008, the learned Tria l Judge closed the evidence of the petitioner observing that in all probability the documents called for will not be traced out. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application under Section 138 of th e Evidence Act for re-examination of P.W.1 in order to prove the Auction Purchas e Certificate. This application was objected to by the respondents and by the or der under challenge, the learned Trial Judge rejected the application. It was he ld that the application has been filed at a very belated stage and the petitione r had enough opportunity to adduce evidence. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his client has always b een diligent in prosecuting the case. It was not his fault that the records coul d not be traced in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. Learned counsel for the respondents objects to the submissions made by l earned counsel for the petitioner. He placed reliance on Order 13, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with production of original documents to b e produced at or before the settlement of issues. He also relies upon Order 7, R ule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure which requires production of documents on which the plaintiff sues and relies. There is no dispute between the parties that the Auction Purchase Certif icate was filed by the petitioner along with the plaint. It is, therefore, not a s if the petitioner did not produce the document at the relevant time. Several attempts were made for production of records pertaining to the a uction from the office of the Deputy Commissioner and, for one reason or another , the records could not be produced as the same were not traceable. The petition er cannot be prejudiced under the circumstances. I am, therefore, of the opinion that justice will be served in this case if the petitioner is allowed to re-examine P.W.1 for the purpose of proving the Auction Purchase Certificate. The parties will appear before the learned Trial Court on 28th September , 2011, on which date the petitioner will produce P.W.1 for recording his eviden ce. The petitioner will also pay costs of Rs.1000/- to the respondent on the next date of hearing before the learned Trial Court. The petition stands disposed of.