CRP 58/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR HN SARMA Heard Mr. M.A. Shiekh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard M r. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents. By this application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 21.1.2010 pas sed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup in Title Suit No. 148/07. By the aforesaid order the learned Munsiff has rejected the additional af fidavit filed by the plaintiff alongwith the copy of the Sale Deed after closer of the evidence of the defendants. The learned Munsiff observed that in order to file affidavit no leave of the court has been obtained and as such the addition al affidavit alongwith the exhibited documents could not be entertained. Accordi ngly the additional affidavit also could not be accepted. It is submitted by Mr. Shiekh that in fact the copies of the documents were file d by the plaintiff by filing the suit under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC and acc ordingly it was necessary to take leave of the court for filing the documents un der Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC. However, where a copy of the document is filed with the plaint the original copy thereof is required to be produced on or befo re settlement of the issues, copies of which were filed alongwith the plaint a s per the provisions under Order XIII Rule 1 of the CPC and upon such filing the court is required to see whether those documents are accompanied by accurate li st thereon. However, Order XIII Rule 1 (iii) which provides the provision for production of the documents on or before settlement of the issues is not applicable for cross examination of the witness of the other party or handed over to a witness merely to refuse the same but that is not the situation in the instant suit inasmuch a s, the said documents were produced alongwith the additional affidavit after clo ser of the evidence of the parties when the suit was fixed for argument. I do no t find that the learned Munsiff has committed any error jurisdictional or otherw ise in passing the impugned order 21.1.2010 justifying interference under Artic le 227 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, Mr. Shiekh submits that the cross suit filed by the defendants is also pending before the court wherein the defendants has challenged the legalit y and validity of the documents which are sought to be produced by the plaintiff by filing additional affidavit. It is further stated that in the said suit the defendants have submitted the sai d documents for consideration of the court and since both the two cases are bein g tried analogously the learned Munsiff may take note of the said documents in c onnection with the present case. However, I am not passing any specific order in relevance to the materials avail able before me. It would be open for the learned Munsiff to take appropriate procedure for disp osing the two cases analogously. The interim order dated 24.2.2010 stands vacated.