CRP 92/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr.M.A.Sheikh learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaint iffs. The revision petition is directed against the orders dated 7.12.2010 and 14.2.2011. By the impugned order dated 7.12.2010 the learned trial court reject ed the prayer made by the plaintiffs/petitioners for fixing another date for pro duction of official witness to prove the gift-deed executed in their favour on t he ground that the plaintiffs have already availed three adjournments but failed to procure attendance of official witness. The petitioner thereafter filed a pe tition under Order 47 Rule I read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure (code for short) for review of the order dated 7.12.2010. The trial court dismissed t he petition on 14.2.2011 seeking review of the order-dated 7.12.2010. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed title suit No. 58/08 in the Court of Mu nsiff, Bilasipara praying interalia for declaration that the plaintiffs as well as proforma defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the owners and possessors of entire A Schedule land alongwith the B Schedule land having right, title, interest and possession thereof. The contention of the petitioner’s is that their father, dur ing his lifetime gifted the entire A schedule land vide deed No. 214/1994 to the plaintiffs and other two brothers who died later on before their marriage an d therefore as per Mohammadan law the plaintiffs and proforma defendant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to the portion of the land gifted to their deceased brothers. As such, to establish their claim over the suit land it was necessary to prove the said registered gift deed through official witness. On the other hand the de fendant No.1 in the written statement denied the execution of said gift deed. In that background despite their efforts the plaintiffs could not procure the atte ndance of the official witness in the Court to prove the registered gift deed. T he plaintiffs/petitioners vide petition Nos.2726 and 2876 prayed before the co urt for fixing a date so as to enable them to procure the presence of Sub-Regist rar to prove the gift deed. However vide impugned order dated 7.12.2010 the pray er made by the petitioners was rejected against which a review petition was file d and that too was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 14.2.201 1, which are under challenge in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have perused the impugned orders dated 7.12.2010 as well as 14.12.2011 . Also perused the copy of the plaint annexed with the instant revision petition . From perusal of the statement made in the plaint it would reveal that th e original registered gift deed No.214/1994 had already been submitted with the plaint. As the gift deed upon which the plaintiff relied has already entered in the list, such documents could be proved by primary evidence. In view of the sam e, in my considered opinion, the presence of the Sub-Registrar/Asstt.Registrar a s official witness to prove the gift deed is not required. With the above observation the revision petition is disposed of.