CRP 130/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. SARMA Heard Mr. H.K. Deka, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. P. Sundi, learned couns el appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Das, learned counsel fo r the respondent. The two orders have been put under challenge in this petition i.e. the order da ted 28-8-2009 passed in T.S. No. 171/2003 by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati, by which the learned trial court rejected the prayer o f the petitioner for summoning the Sub- Registrar to prove the original sale dee d No. 3390 dated 23.5.2000, Sale Deed No. 3435 dated 23.5.2000 and Sale Deed No. 3612 dated 23.5.2000 by which the defendant-petitioner claims right over the pr operties mentioned therein. The other order under challenge is the order dated 8 .2.2010 passed by the learned trial court in Case No. Misc.(J) No. 232/09 reject ing the review so filed by the petitioner. I have given my anxious consideration to the elaborate arguments made by Mr. Dek a, learned Sr. counsel as well as Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the res pondent. The claim of the petitioner is that the certified copies of the sale deeds on th e basis of which the defendant petitioner claims rights over the suit property t hat have been admitted in the evidence adduced. The petitioner wants to prove th e original sale deeds calling the Sub Registrar from Guwahati Sub Registry, inas much, as the original sale deeds have not been handed over to the petitioner. Th e learned trial court rejected the aforesaid prayer inasmuch as, in the list of witnesses so furnished, such names of the official witnesses were not recorded a nd the application was not verified or supported by any affidavit. From the materials available before me, it is found that the suit was filed in J uly, 2003 and written statement was filed by the defendant on 27-10-2003 whereas the defendant No. 2 filed written statement on 21.12.03. On the basis of pleadi ngs of the parties, issues were framed on 3-12-2004 and the list of witnesse s were furnished by the parties on 3-2-2005. Evidence of the parties were produc ed on 12-4-2005. On 10.8.2005, 12.12.2005 and 4.6.2007 evidence of PWs 1,2 and 3 were completed. On 4-5-2006 PW 1 was examined. The one witness on behalf of the defendants was also examined on commissioned. T he suit is fixed for argument and hearing on 29-4-10. Mr. Deka learned sr. counsel submits that the Sub- Registrar is to be summoned t o prove original right vide Sale Deeds in the registration book inasmuch as, the original sale deeds have not been proved as regards the due registration of the documents. The sale deeds in question have not been disputed at the Bar that th e original sale deeds have not been received by the petitioner and accordingly t he certified copies of those three sale deeds have been proved. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion, the apprehension of the petitioner i s well not founded inasmuch as, the sale deeds have been proved in the suit and the petitioner would be entitled to lay the foundation of arguments on the basis of such sale deeds as proved in the suit. Although the learned trial court reje cted the prayer of the petitioner on the ground of non verification of the appli cation but an application is not liable to be rejected for such defect without p roviding such opportunity to an applicant before rejecting such an application f or non verification the court is to provide necessary opportunity to the applica nt, whoever he may be, to rectify the defect. That apart the order dated 8-2-201 0 passed by the learned trial court does not appear to be in consonance with the provisions of law. Section 114 of the CPC makes it clear that a review lies aga inst an order against which no appeal is allowed. In the instant case the learned trial court rejected the prayer for review obser ving that the order sought to be reviewed not being an appellable order is not t he correct position of law and is against the provisions contained under S. 114 of the CPC. However the petitioner has approached this court by challenging the impugned ord er under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India under the Supervisory jurisdictio n of this Court. In view of the above discussions and the observations made in the impugned order as indicated therein, I am of the opinion that the interest of the plaintiff is well protected even in the absence of evidence with the Sub Registrar to prove the original Sale Deeds as sought for by the petitioner. The certified copies o f the sale deeds so proved by the petitioner would be utilized by him for laying the foundation for defence in the suit. With the above observations this petition stands closed.