This matter though relating to Kohima Bench was directed to be moved at the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court on 3.4.98 by the Hon'ble Chief Justice and it is in that light that this civil revision was so moved on 22.4.98 by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr, BR Dey when on that day Notice of Motion was issued made returnable within 4 weeks. However, as prayed for the further proceeding of TS 5 of 1978 so pending in the Court of the Deputy Commi­ssioner (Judicial), Dimapur also got stayed with a liberty to the OP as to make a prayer if so advised for modification/alteration/cancellation of the stay order so passed. It further transpires that the OP of this revision petition being represented by Mr. DK Talukdar the learned counsel thus filed a Misc Case 62 of 1998 for vacating the stay order as detailed above. In further transpires that when the date was so fixed for hearing the misc case, instead of hearing of the misc case because of both the sides lawyers appearing took an endeavour as to get the main civil revision disposed of at this stage itself and it is in that light the matter is heard. 2. The petitioner of this civil revision has filed this petition under section 115 read with section 151 CPC also under Article 227 of the Constitution being aggrieved by the order dated 17.3.98 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Dimapur in TS 5 of 1978. The present petitioner Shanti Ranjan Dewanjee happened to be the defendant in the said title suit. The present petitioner Shanti Ranjan Dewanjee happened to be the defendant in the said title suit. It transpires that in the said title suit the matter was fixed for judgment on 13.9.97 by the learned Court below when an application was so filed by the plaintiff-OP under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC for admitting the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 1.9.1975 in substitution or in addition to the certified copy of the said deed filed at the time of filing of the plaint and the necessity was arising for once again filing the certified copy of the same deed because of the OP side detecting after the argument stage of the suit that the certified copy of the said deed even though marked as Ext A/40 filed earlier did not have the last page and thus it was felt necessary by the OP-plaintiff as to furnish he certified copy of the said deed afresh just to assist the Court to arrive at a right decision. It further transpires that the petition so filed with regard to the application so filed on 19.9.97 by the plaintiff for admitting the certified copy of the said deed and the learned Court below after hearing both the sides passed the impugned order on 17.3.98 admitting the document. Hence this civil revision petition. 3. Mr. BR Dey, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Court below has erred in admitting the document which was so filed by the plaintiff's side as to fill up the lacuna and when the original deed was missing it was incumbent on the part of the plaintiff as to incorporate and take this ground at the very initial stage which in the instant case has not been done; that Ext A/40 as referred in the impugned order is not the certified copy of the deed in question but only the copy of the registered deed which in no case could have been admitted as secondary evidence and finding this lacuna an attempt was made by the plaintiff as to file the certified copy to fill up the said lacuna which was at the very belated stage accepted causing great prejudice to the petitioner-defendant. In this connection it is also pointed out that this ground of marking the copy of the deed as exhibit is also raised by the present petitioner in the notes of argument so given and placed before the learned Court below. It is also pointed out that the moment the title suit was posted for judgment in such circumstances admission of the document on the basis of the application of the OP-plaintiff dated 19.9.97 can well be said to be arbitrary and unwarranted which requires interference. In support of his this contention, Mr. Dey the learned counsel has referred to a reported case AIR 1990 AP 265 (P. Ramachandra Murthy & others vs. K. Rama Murthy & others) particularly its head note A is read alongwith para 5. It is also emphatically argued by Mr. Dey, the learned counsel that Noso Angami died in 1977, the plaint was filed in 1978 but the plaintiff did not whisper a single word with regard to the missing of the original document in their plaint nor in their deposition and that being the position the learned Court below could not have admitted the certified copy of the said sale deed as secondary evidence. 4. On the other hand, Mr. DK Talukdar, the learned counsel for the OP has submitted that at the time of filing of the plaint the certified copy of the said deed was filed which is also very much referred by the learned Court below in his impugned order dated 17.3.98. Mr. Talukdar has admitted that the said title suit got posted for judgment and in course of trial the said certified copy filed with the plaint was also marked as Ext A/40 as also referred by the learned Court below in the impugned order. Mr. Talukdar has admitted that the said title suit got posted for judgment and in course of trial the said certified copy filed with the plaint was also marked as Ext A/40 as also referred by the learned Court below in the impugned order. It is to the utter surprise of the plaintiff that at the belated detected that Ext A/40 does not comprise the whole of the pages and the last page was found missing might be because of the mischief played by some of the interested parties when the plaintiff became cautious and feeling that this missing of one page of Ext A/40 may cause difficulty for the learned Court below as to adjudicate and deliver judgment, just to assist the Court, the plaintiff filed a petition on 19.9.97 with a prayer for accepting and admitting the certified copy of the said document obtained afresh which was accepted by the learned Court below as to meet the ends of justice and thus there was nothing wrong in the impugned order under challenge and since in this background this civil revision petition has got no merit, the same be dismissed, It is also submitted that on mere technical grounds party should not be allowed to suffer and when such petitions are filed it is only expected of the Court as to whether admitting such document at belated stage can be proper or not and to see whether good cause is shown by the party concerned seeking to admit such document at belated stage and after assigning cogent reasons can very well admit such document at belated stage. In this background by referring to the impugned order, Mr. Talukdar, the learned counsel submits that cogent reason is shown by the learned Court below and the order is passed after being satisfied and finding good reason shown by the plaintiff-OP by filing such application on 19.9.97 for admitting the said document. It is also referred that as a matter of fact in the present case it was not a new document which was so attempted to be introduced at belated stage. It is also referred that as a matter of fact in the present case it was not a new document which was so attempted to be introduced at belated stage. The certified copy was already filed along with the plaint but because of the one page missing so detected at a belated stage, the petition was so filed for admitting the certified copy of the said document and the learned Court below got both the documents tallied and being satisfied allowed the petition dated 19.9.97. In support of his this contention the learned counsel for the OP-plaintiff has referred to some of the reported case AIR 1990 SC 396 (Kalyan Singh vs. Smti Chhati & others) and by particularly referring to its headnotes (C) it is submitted that the certified copy of the registered sale deed can well be produced as secondary evidence in place of the original which has rightly been admitted as previously marked as Ext A/40 and its certified copy obtained afresh also being rightly admitted in the background of the facts and circumstances. Mr. Talukdar has referred to the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17A CPC and has submitted that in the light of the said provision in such circumstances as to meet the ends of justice the Court is expected to take a liberal view which has rightly been taken. In all fairness it is argued that to what extent the said document would be relied upon by the Court of the first instance is a matter for the trial Court to decide and since the matter is subjudice before him, he has nothing to submit but the plaintiff was duly bound as to substitute Ext A/40 by filing the certified copy of that very document obtained afresh as to remove the confusion which might have cropped up in the mind of the Presiding Officer while dictating judgment, to this surprise, finding the last page of Ext A/40 missing and thus in such circum­stances on no account it can be said that the impugned order so passed admitting the said document can be said to be filling up of the lacuna as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In support of his this contention that the learned Court below was perfectly within its limit as to admit the said document, Mr. In support of his this contention that the learned Court below was perfectly within its limit as to admit the said document, Mr. Talukdar, the learned counsel has referred to a few other reported cases (1987) 1 GLR 372 (Jai Prakash Singh vs. Ram Narayan Singh) with that of (1994) 1 GLR 57 (Manindra Paul vs. Pradip Paul)(1993 (2) GLJ 398). 5. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, taking into consideration the facts discussed above also after going through the Annexures and particularly the impugned order, I find that there is much of substance in the argument so advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party-plaintiff being advanced by Mr. DK Talukdar representing them that the impugned order does not require any interference, and this in the back ground of the facts and circumstances it cannot be said that by accepting such document the plaintiff-OP has given a chance to fill up any lacuna since as per the plaintiff's case as also incorporation in the impugned order, even at the time of filing of the plaint the certified copy of the said document was filed. I do not thus find any merit in this revision as no cogent reason is assigned giving rise as to interfere with the impugned order. Taking that view this revision petition is dismissed. However, before parting with, it is observed that since Ext A/40 is claimed to be the certified copy of the original deed filed by the plaintiff as also incorporated in the impugned order, being controverted by the present petitioner, the petitioner if so advised shall be at liberty as to make a prayer before the learned Court below for examining any witness on that point or for cross-examination of any of the witnesses already examined and discharged on behalf of the plaintiff and if such petition is filed to that extent only on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Court below may allow sue H prayer for examination of any DW on that point or for cross-examination of any PW on that point recalling the said witness. Parties to bear their own costs.