CRP 23/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr M Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr SJ Sarma, le arned counsel for the opposite party No.1 and Mr RK Jain, learned counsel for th e opposite party No.2. The superintending jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the C onstitution of India is sought to be invoked to set at naught the order dated 29 .11.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.3, Kamrup, Guwahati in Title Suit No. 26/2007 rejecting the petitioner/plaintiff’s application to summon and exami ne one Mohibul Hussain, Extra Typist of the office of the Senior Sub-Registrar, Guwahati as her witness. The petitioner/ plaintiff has instituted the aforementi oned suit praying inter alia for declaration of her right, title and interest o ver the suit land and for confirmation of possession. Alternately she has also p rayed for a decree for recovery of possession, in the event she is dis-possessed of the said property by the opposite party/ defendants during the suit. The opposite party / defendant No.2 in his written statement has sought to resist the suit on the basis of title over the suit land derived on the stre ngth of the sale deed No. 7360/06 dated 13.7.2006. The opposite party / defendan t No.1 inter alia contended to have purchased the suit land from the petitioner/ plaintiff vide sale deed No. 6185/02 dated 13.9.2002 and, thereafter, conveyed the same in favour of the opposite party No2/ defendant No.2 by the aforemention ed sale deed No. 7360/06 dated 13.7.2006. The suit is presently at the stage of recording of evidence of witnesses . It having transpired in between that the original of the sale deed No. 6185/02 dated 13.9.2002 is lost, the petitioner/ plaintiff in course of the examination of her witnesses produced the Senior Sub-Registrar, Kamrup(Metro), Mr Ram Kumar Baishya as P.W.2 who in his testimony affirmed the loss thereof from his office . It was at this stage that the petitioner/ plaintiff filed an application seeki ng leave of the learned Trial Court to examine Md. Mohibul Hussain, Extra Typist of the office of the Senior Sub-Registrar, Guwahati to elaborate the facts pert aining to the loss of the sale deed contending inter alia that he had lodged an FIR in connection therewith with the Panbazar Police Station. The prayer was opposed by the opposite party / defendant No.2 pleading i nter alia that the Senior Sub-Registrar, Kamrup(Metro), Guwahati having been exa mined in this regard, it was inessential to multiply witnesses on the same aspec t of the controversy. Whereas Mr Talukdar has emphatically urged that the examination of the w itness proposed by the petitioner/ plaintiff is necessary in the interest of jus tice, more particularly to bring to light the possible background in which the d ocument had gone missing, Mr Jain has urged that as the certified copy of the sa id document is available for production and scrutiny of the Trial Court, no inte rference with the impugned order is warranted. Having regard to the mutual orientation of the parties in their pleading s and the issue to be decided, this Court is of the view, having regard to the r easons recorded in the impugned order, that no interference therewith is called for. The petitioner/ plaintiff having examined Mr Ram Kumar Baishya, Senior Sub- Registrar, Kamrup(Metro), Guwahati to highlight this aspect of the debate, in th e opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court did not commit any error of law or jurisdiction justifying the intervention of this Court in the exercise of it s superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No further comment/ observation is being made at this stage for obvious reasons. T he learned Trial Court would proceed with the suit expeditiously. The petition is dismissed. No costs.