ORDER The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 2nd June, 2012 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-I (Sub Judge-I), Garhwa, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-Defendant No.1 dated 2nd June, 2012 for calling for original Sale Deed No.1533 of 2008 from the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Garhwa, taken away from the office of the District Sub Registrar, Garhwa, has been rejected. 2. It has been stated that earlier the prayer was allowed by order dated 8th September, 2010. Thereafter, the record was requisitioned by the Court, but due to some mistake in description, the sale deed could not be produced. Thereafter, the petition was again filed on behalf of Defendant No.1 to call for the said deed, but by the impugned order dated 2nd June, 2012, learned court below observed that there is no need to call for the original sale deed and rejected the defendant's petition. 3. It has been submitted that the original sale deed is required for comparing the sale deed filed by the defendant and for just adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. Considering the need of the original sale deed, the Court had passed the order dated 8th September, 2010 calling for the original deed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said order was not set aside or altered by any superior court nor there was any prayer for review/recalling the order. Learned Subordinate Judge has committed serious error in rejecting the petitioner's prayer and upsetting its earlier order. The impugned order is against judicial propriety and wholly illegal and unsustainable. 5. The respondents appeared and filed counter affidavit, supporting the impugned order. However, in the counter affidavit, it has not been stated that earlier order was challenged or altered or set aside by the superior court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that since learned court below did not feel necessity of the original sale deed, he has passed the impugned order. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 8th September, 2010 along with the impugned order. It is an admitted position that prayer for calling for the original sale deed, in question, was allowed by order dated 8th September, 2010 by the same Court. Thereafter, the order was not challenged by either party. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 8th September, 2010 along with the impugned order. It is an admitted position that prayer for calling for the original sale deed, in question, was allowed by order dated 8th September, 2010 by the same Court. Thereafter, the order was not challenged by either party. There is no petition on record for recalling the said order. In view thereof, learned Court below has no occasion to upset the earlier order and reverse effect thereof. 7. If any order is incorrect, illegal or improper, there are provisions for challenging the order before appropriate court. Changing order by the same Court at a later stage suo moto is contrary to the provision of law and is not permissible. It is also against the judicial propriety and settled norms. 8. The impugned order is, thus, wholly illegal and unsustainable and is, hereby, set aside. 9. It has been informed that the suit is at the argument stage. Learned court below shall proceed with the suit in view of the earlier order and expedite hearing so that the suit be disposed of without any further delay. 10. This writ petition is allowed.