Order When the matter is called out, counsel for the petitioner is absent. Neither the matter is mentioned nor anybody appears on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Counsel appearing for the respondents is present, who has argued out the case much in detail, and has submitted that the petitioner is a original plaintiff, who has instituted Title Suit No. 49 of 2001 before the Court of Sub-Judge-I, Garhwa for specific performance. It is further submitted that an application preferred by the original plaintiff for presenting certain documents, was dismissed vide order dated rd January 2008. 3. Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that it is a case of the original defendants that they are relying upon death certificates of one Ram Gahan Patwa and Kauli Devi, both husband and wife, and a sale deed was executed in favour of the original defendants on 20th March 1998 by the legal heirs of the aforesaid two persons, who are respondent nos. 2 to 5, but, thereafter, it appears that original plaintiff preferred an application to the Government office from where the death certificates were issued and they got the answer that the aforesaid two death certificates, which were presented by the original defendants, were never issued by the same Government office. Original plaintiff wants to present these documents before the learned trial court, but, as there was a gross delay in filing of these documents, the learned trial court has rightly rejected such an application preferred by the original plaintiff and therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respondents and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the impugned order passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Garhwa dated 3rd January 2008, I hereby quash and set aside the said order, mainly, on the following facts and reasons:- (i) The petitioner is the original plaintiff who has instituted Title Suit No. 49 of 2001. (ii) It appears that the original defendants are relying upon death certificates of Ram Gahan Patwa and Kauli Devi and they are claiming right, title and interest upon the suit property on the basis of a sale deed dated 20th March 1998 executed by the legal heirs of the aforesaid two persons. (ii) It appears that the original defendants are relying upon death certificates of Ram Gahan Patwa and Kauli Devi and they are claiming right, title and interest upon the suit property on the basis of a sale deed dated 20th March 1998 executed by the legal heirs of the aforesaid two persons. (iii) It further appears that the suit had proceeded further, evidences on both sides were over and the original plaintiff entered correspondence with the Government office, who had issued the death certificates of Ram Gahan Patwa and Kauli Devi. Under reply obtained from the Government office, it appears that the death certificates which were presented by the original defendants were never issued. This reply given by the Government office now ought to have been brought on record because it affects the very root of the case and therefore, the original plaintiff has preferred an application on 21st November 2007 for presenting the aforesaid documents before the learned trial court. This application has been dismissed by the learned trial court by the impugned order, mainly on the ground of delay. This is an error apparent on the face of the record. A document which vitally affects the very root of the case, ought to have been allowed to be presented at any stage of the trial. Whenever, there is a delay, some cost may be imposed upon the parties. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. (iv) Moreover, looking to the nature of the document which the original plaintiff wants to adduce as an evidence, affects the very root of the case. The document to be presented by the plaintiff is a Governmental document and is not a document, created by the original plaintiff himself/herself. Once the death certificates of Ram Gahan Patwa and Kauli Devi are found to be false and frivolous, the sale deed upon which the defendants are relying upon, will also have no evidentiary value. 5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Garhwa dated 3rd January 2008 in Title Suit No. 49 of 2001 and I hereby direct the original plaintiff to present the documents before the learned trial court with a cost of Rs. 5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Garhwa dated 3rd January 2008 in Title Suit No. 49 of 2001 and I hereby direct the original plaintiff to present the documents before the learned trial court with a cost of Rs. 1000/-which will be presented by the plaintiff within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon proper application, the same will be allowed to be withdrawn by the original defendants. The original defendants are also permitted to rebut the documents which are to be presented by the original plaintiff before the trial court. They are also permitted to file additional documents upon which they are relying because the counsel for the original defendants has submitted that they have also obtained new documents that death certificates of Ram Gahan Patwa and Kauli Devi are correctly issued by the same Government office. Therefore, they are permitted to present those documents before the learned trial court upon proper application to be preferred before the learned trial court. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of. 7. Interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated.