CRP 220/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA The instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitut ion of India read with Section 45 of the Code of Civil Procedure (’Code’ for sho rt) has been filed by the petitioners challenging the legality and validity of t he impugned order dated 14.5.08 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Jorhat in TS No.62/07 refusing to call for certain documents from the Jorhat Police Station. Heard Mr. GC Phukan, learned counsel appearing for the petitione rs. None appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service of notice. The revision petitioners as plaintiffs filed a title suit being TS No.62/07 before the learned trial Court for cancellation of several registere d deeds viz. Sale deed No. 682, Partnership deed No. 244, General Power of Attor ney No.245, all the documents dated 18.5.07 alongwith a prayer for a decree for declaration and recovery of khas possession over the land involved in the said d eeds. The grounds shown for cancellation of the aforesaid deeds were that the de eds were neither executed by the plaintiff/petitioner No.2 nor those were regist ered in accordance with law and accordingly, the petitioner No.2 alongwith his s on, i.e. the petitioner No.1 wanted the same to be cancelled through court. It i s the further case of the plaintiffs/petitioners that simultaneously the petitio ner No.2 also lodged an FIR with the Jorhat Police Station for taking necessary action against the respondents concerned and on filing of the said FIR, the poli ce registered a case being Jorhat PS Case No.199/07 under Sections 419/420 of th e IPC. During the course of investigation, police seized the documents aforement ioned from the office of the Sub-registrar, Jorhat with a permission from the Ch ief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat. Therefore, the aforesaid documents which were p rayed to be cancelled by a court through a decree are in the possession of Jorha t Police Station. In view of the prayer made by the plaintiffs/petitioners, it b ecame necessary to bring the aforesaid documents on record of the civil court. T herefore, the petitioners filed a petition under Order 13 Rule 8 read with Secti on 151 of the Code as well as Section 73 of the Evidence Act before the learned Munsiff No.2, praying therein for passing an order calling for the record from t he police station clearly stating therein as to why the documents are necessary for just adjudication of the mater in the suit. When the said petition came up for hearing before the learned tr ial Court, no objection was raised on behalf of the respondents. However, vide i mpugned order dated 14.5.08, learned trial Court refused to call for the same. T hus being aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been filed praying for se tting aside the impugned order dated 14.5.08 passed in petition No.426/08 in TS No.62/07. Mr. Phukan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has su bmitted that it would be incumbent on the part of the learned court below to hav e the documents concerned for verifying the same with reference to the evidence on record as to whether the documents were genuinely executed by the petitioner No.2 or not and only to facilitate the answer to such question the petitioners f iled the aforesaid petition praying for calling the documents from Jorhat police station. The learned trial Court, for the ends of justice, ought to have allowe d the petition so filed by the petitioner and by refusing to call for the same, the learned trial Court has refused to exercise its jurisdiction which is vested upon it under Section 151 of the Code. In the facts and circumstances of the ca se and the prayer made in the petition, the inherent power of the court cannot b e refused to be exercised by the court below and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and quashed by this Court exercising the extra ordinary p ower under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It has not been contended in the present petition that there was any error apparent on the face of the record and/or the trial court has exercis ed jurisdiction not vested in it by law any/or has exercised jurisdiction so ves ted and/or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with mater ial irregularity while passing the impugned order under challenge. In view of the discussion as indicated hereinabove, this Court f inds that the learned trial Court has rightly passed the order dated 14.5.2008. There is no error of jurisdiction or material irregularity committed in the exer cise of jurisdiction by the learned court below warranting interference by this Court. In the result, the revision petition being devoid of merit, the same is dismissed. Interim order passed earlier, stands vacated. No costs.