JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Service upon the respondents is complete. Mr. Bhaiya V. Kumar appears on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 8 and Ms. Rita Kumari appears on behalf of respondent nos.9 and 10. 2. Heard. 3. Referring to averments in paragraph no.9 of the written statement filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3 in Title Suit No.11 of 2001/29 of 2005, Mrs. Sarita Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that sufficient foundation has been laid by the defendants in the written statement, resisting the plaintiffs' prayer in the aforesaid Title Suit. It is further submitted that whether the documents, that is, the correction slips, are admissible in evidence or not can be adjudicated by the trial court at the time of final hearing and while so, at this stage, the defendants cannot be precluded from producing a document in support of their stand taken in the written statement. 4. Per contra, Mr. Bhaiya V. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 8, submits that the application dated 02.02.2005 was a design by the defendants only to delay the proceeding in Title Suit No.11 of 2001/29 of 2005. It is submitted that the defendants who have no case on merits are only interested in delaying the adjudication of the rights claimed by the plaintiffs in Title Suit No.11 of 2001/29 of 2005. The learned counsel refers to the proceeding in the aforesaid Title Suit and submits that the defendants filed their written statement on 08.02.2003 and only after the suit was posted for arguments, application dated 02.02.2005 seeking leave of the court, for taking the correction slips on record, was filed. 5. Title Suit No.11 of 2001/29 of 2005 was instituted by one Somra Toppo and others for declaring sale-deed dated 14.02.2001 as null and void and for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit properties. The defendant nos.1 to 3 in their written statement admitted that the plaintiffs are descendants of Jalha Oraon, who was father of Budhu Uraon, father of defendant nos. 2 and 3. The defendants pleaded that the suit property is the sole acquired property of Budhu Uraon, who had agreed to sell the said property to the defendant nos.2 and 3. The defendant nos.1 to 3 in their written statement admitted that the plaintiffs are descendants of Jalha Oraon, who was father of Budhu Uraon, father of defendant nos. 2 and 3. The defendants pleaded that the suit property is the sole acquired property of Budhu Uraon, who had agreed to sell the said property to the defendant nos.2 and 3. However, before Budhu Uraon could execute the sale-deed he died and his widow namely, Birsi Oraoin filed an application under Section 46 of the CNT Act for transfer of the property comprised in Mauza Hathia, Thana No.61, Thana Chakradharpur, Khata No. 362, Plot No.2263, Area 0.88 decimals and Mauza Setahaka, Thana No.645, Khata No.40, Pot No.192, Area 0.42 decimals. It appears that finally vide sale-deed no.3228 dated 18.09.1981 the said Birsi @ Maidi Oraoin transferred her absolute right in the aforesaid landed property in favour of defendant nos.2 and 3. The defendant nos.1 to 3, in their written statement have specifically asserted that Mutation Case Nos.115 and 116 of 198384, which was filed in respect of the aforesaid property comprised under sale-deed dated 18.09.1981 which is the suit property in Title Suit No.11 of 2001/29 of 2005 was allowed by the Circle Officer, Chakradharpur in favour of the defendant nos.2 and 3. Now the defendants have sought permission of the court to produce the correction slips issued pursuant to order passed in Mutation Case Nos.115 and 116 of 198384. In the impugned order dated 23.06.2005, the trial court has noticed that the defendants have averred issuance of correction slips in their written statement, however, on the ground that they had the knowledge and possession of the correction slips still, they failed to bring that evidence on record, application dated 02.02.2005 was declined. I am of the considered view that the approach of the learned writ court cannot be sanctioned in law. Parties to a suit must be afforded fullest opportunity to lead evidence in support of their pleadings. Opportunity to lead further evidence can be granted even at the stage of arguments and accordingly, application dated 02.02.2005 should have been allowed by the trial court. 6. Order dated 30.08.2005 passed by this Court in the present proceeding reveals that while issuing notice to the respondents, this Court directed the trial court not to deliver the judgment. Opportunity to lead further evidence can be granted even at the stage of arguments and accordingly, application dated 02.02.2005 should have been allowed by the trial court. 6. Order dated 30.08.2005 passed by this Court in the present proceeding reveals that while issuing notice to the respondents, this Court directed the trial court not to deliver the judgment. The learned counsel for the parties submit that parties have already led evidence and the matter was posted for arguments. In the aforesaid facts, a liberty is reserved with the petitioner-defendant no.1 to produce one witness on 22.11.2016 for exhibiting and marking the correction slips, a reference thereof has been given in application dated 02.02.2005. The plaintiffs would be at liberty to lead evidence in rebuttal. With this limited permission to the writ petitioner, the writ petition stands allowed. Order dated 23.06.2005 passed in Title Suit No.11 of 2001/29 of 2005 is set aside. Cost of Rs.2,000/to be paid to the plaintiffs on the date fixed. Petition allowed.