CRP 30/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. AC Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. PK Kalita, learn ed counsel for the opposite party. The petitioner as the plaintiff has instituted TS No.276/2008, against the oppos ite party praying for a decree for permanent injunction against him and his men etc. from interfering with his (petitioner/plaintiff’s) possession of the suit l and described in Schedule A to the plaint. According to him, he had purchased th e same on 22.09.1987 from the owner thereof vide a registered sale deed bearing No. 2200. He alleged illegal and arbitrary interference with his possession of t he suit land by the opposite party/defendant. In his written statement, the opposite party/defendant, on the other hand, claim ed ownership of the suit land and alleged unauthorised interference with his pos session thereof by the petitioner/plaintiff. After framing of issues, the petitioner/plaintiff submitted his affidavit eviden ce as well as that of three other witnesses. Though, two dates thereafter were f ixed for cross-examination of these witnesses, adjournment was prayed for and th e same could not be conducted. On the third date, an application was filed by th e petitioner-plaintiff seeking the leave of the learned trial court to allow him to submit additional-affidavit-in-evidence in order to mark his documents, name ly, the sale deed, Jamabandi etc. in support of his pleaded case in the suit. Wr itten objection was filed on behalf of the opposite party/defendant, contending principally that as the affidavit-evidence on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff and his witnesses had been filed long back on 20.07.2010, this attempt was only to delay the disposal of the suit. The learned trial court after hearing the pa rties and on a consideration of the pleadings bearing on the issue, before it, r ejected the application. Mr. Sharma, has urged that as the additional-affidavit-evidence on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff is indispensably essential to prove his pleaded case, the rejection thereof would amount to denial of fair trial to him. He has submitted that as the foundational facts in support of the documents sought to be marked a s exhibits are available in the affidavit-evidence already on record, the learne d court below ought to have allowed the prayer in the exercise of its inherent p ower under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short hereafter refer red to as the CPC). Mr. Kalita, on the other hand, has urged that in absence of any provision in the CPC permitting the course of action as suggested by the petitioner/plaintiff, t he impugned order is unassailable in law and no interference in exercise of this Court’s superintending power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is called for. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the p leaded facts, this Court is of the view that the impugned order if allowed to st and would result in travesty of justice. On a specific query made by this Court, Mr. Kalita has been candid and fair to s ubmit that the plea of the petitioner/plaintiff that the documents sought to be brought on record relate to the facts narrated in the original affidavit-in-oppo sition is not disputed. In this view of the matter, as the basic facts relatable to the documents now sought to be exhibited find place in the original affidavi t evidence, in the opinion of this Court, denial of an opportunity to him to pro ve the said documents would be unjust and unfair and too technical on approach. The ground of absence of any provision to permit re-examination of a plaintiff i n a suit at this stage in an eventuality as akin to the one in the instant petit ion, in the opinion of this Court, is unconvincing. It is an endeavour on his pa rt to prove the documents, reference whereof, has already been made in his affid avit-evidence, already on record. In the above view of the matter, the order dated 18.12.2010 is interfered with. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The learned trial court would permit the pe titioner/plaintiff to bring on record the additional-affidavit evidence only for the purpose of exhibiting the documents and referred to in his application date d 06.10.2010. The parties would appear before the learned trial court on 05.09.2 011 to take further order(s). No costs.