JUDGMENT : K.R. Mohapatra, J. The unsuccessful defendants in T.S. No. 3 of 1984 have filed this appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1988 and 13.05.1988 passed by learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Rairangpur. 2. The suit was filed for decree of partition in respect of schedule ‘A’ land. The case of the plaintiffs as revealed from the plaint is that plaintiff No.1, namely, Kala @ Nuna Majhi is the son of late Dubraj Majhi through his first wife, namely, Basi. Plaintiff No.2 is the son of plaintiff No.1. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of said Dubraj Majhi through his second wife, namely, Kapura. Defendant No. 3 is the widow of late Laxman Majhi, one of the sons of late Dubraj Majhi through his second wife. Laxman Majhi died in the year 1980 leaving behind defendant No. 3 and daughter namely, Kapura. One Hema Majhi was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendants. The suit land was recorded in his name in the 1927 Settlement. On the death of Hema Majhi, plaintiffs inherited and possessed the suit land. After the death of Hema, the plaintiffs, defendants 1 and 2 and the husband of defendant No.3 possessed Schedule-‘A’ land according to their convenience with an understanding that they would record partition of the suit land during Settlement operation. Schedule-‘C’ property was exclusively recorded in the name of plaintiff No.1, which was purchased by the mother of the plaintiff No.1, namely, Basi from her Stridhan, which she acquired by working at the tea garden in Assam. Thus, Schedule-‘C’ land is not the joint family property. The Settlement operation commenced in the Sub-Division in the year 1981and thus, as per their understanding, the plaintiffs in the month of Magha, 1982 requested defendants 1 and 2 for a partition of the suit land. But they did not pay any heed to it. In May, 1983, defendants 1 and 2 tried to dispossess the plaintiffs out of the suit land for which a proceeding under Section 107, Cr.P.C. was initiated by the local Police and a proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. was also filed in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rairangpur. In the said proceeding, the defendant No.1 filed his written statement disputing the status of the plaintiff No.1. He alleged that the plaintiff No.1 is a stranger to the family having no right, title or interest over the suit property. In the said proceeding, the defendant No.1 filed his written statement disputing the status of the plaintiff No.1. He alleged that the plaintiff No.1 is a stranger to the family having no right, title or interest over the suit property. He is not the son of Dubraj Majhi. In view of the above, the plaintiffs had no other option but to file the suit. 3. The defendants filed their written statement jointly denying the averments made in the plaint and also challenged the maintainability of the suit at the instance of the plaintiffs. They contended that the plaintiffs neither have any locus standi nor any cause of action to file the suit. They also challenged the maintainability of the suit on several other grounds. It is the case of the defendants that one Dhama Majhi, son of Bishu Majhi of village Kudahansa, was working at tea garden in Assam. During his stay in Assam, he married to one Pungi Majhi. The mother of the plaintiff No.1, namely, Basi was the sister of said Pungi. Basi was also working at the tea garden in Assam. Her husband was a man of Assam. Due to disturbance in between the Management and the workers of the tea garden said Dhama Majhi came back to his native place with his wife. By that time, the husband of Basi was dead. So she also accompanied said Dhama with the plaintiff No.1. They stayed at the house of said Dhama Majhi. Basi used to earn her livelihood by doing household works of different persons in the village. Subsequently, she constructed a house in the village on the land of one Sitaram Majhi, who was also related to said Dhama. Defendants admitted the ‘C’ schedule land to be the self-acquired property of Basi. Thus, said Basi, the mother of plaintiff No.1, was not the wife of Dubraj. Neither the plaintiff No.1 nor the plaintiff No.2 was related to said Dubraj or his family. They have never stayed in the house of the defendants. They are completely strangers to the family. Defendants also filed additional written statement contending that Sitaram Majhi acquired some land at Kinjirminjir of Singbhum district in Jharkhand State and resided there. Thus, he left house and homestead in the charge of Dhama Majhi. Dhama Majhi allowed the mother of plaintiff-1, Basi to stay on the said land by constructing a house thereon. Defendants also filed additional written statement contending that Sitaram Majhi acquired some land at Kinjirminjir of Singbhum district in Jharkhand State and resided there. Thus, he left house and homestead in the charge of Dhama Majhi. Dhama Majhi allowed the mother of plaintiff-1, Basi to stay on the said land by constructing a house thereon. They contended that the plaintiffs are neither related to their father, namely, Dubraj nor they have any right, title or interest over the suit land. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Taking into consideration the rival pleadings of the parties, learned Civil Judge framed as many as seven issued, which are as follows:- 1. Is the suit maintainable? 2. Has the plaintiffs any cause of action? 3. Is the suit barred by limitation and adverse possession? 4. Is the suit barred by estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? 5. Is the plaintiff No.1 son of Dubraj Majhi through his first wife? 6. Whether Dubraj Majhi, the father of defendant No.1 had acquired any land in his life time? 7. Have the plaintiffs any right, title and interest in the suit land and what reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to? 5. In order to substantiate their respective case, the plaintiffs examined as many as five witnesses including plaintiff No.2 as PW-5. Plaintiff No.1 has not been examined in this case. The plaintiffs relied upon Exts. 1 to 8 in support of their case, including Exts. 6, 7 and 8, i.e., the voter list of 1973, 1980 and 1983, which were introduced at the stage of argument of the suit. On the other hand, the defendants examined seven witnesses including defendant No.2 as DW-7. They relied upon Exts. ‘A’ to ‘F’ in support of their case. Learned Civil Judge taking into consideration the pleadings and materials on record decreed the suit preliminarily allotting 1/4th share out of the Schedule-‘A’ land to the plaintiffs so also 1/4th shares to each of the defendants. The defendants being deeply aggrieved by the said judgment and decree have preferred this appeal. 6. During pendency of the appeal, the respondent No.1 (plaintiff No.1 in the suit) died and his name was deleted by order dated 25.10.1990. Though the plaintiff No.2 (respondent No.2 herein) entered appearance through his Advocate none appeared for him at the time of hearing. Mr. 6. During pendency of the appeal, the respondent No.1 (plaintiff No.1 in the suit) died and his name was deleted by order dated 25.10.1990. Though the plaintiff No.2 (respondent No.2 herein) entered appearance through his Advocate none appeared for him at the time of hearing. Mr. Avijit Pal, learned counsel for the appellants assailing the judgment and decree of the trial Court made submissions as follows:- (i) The plaintiff No.1, who was competent to say about his relationship with Dubraj did not come to the witness box, hence, adverse inference should be drawn against him; (ii) Exts. 6, 7 and 8 should not have been admitted into evidence at the stage of argument without following the procedure laid down in Order 13 Rule-1(2) CPC and Sections 67 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; (iii) Learned Court below has not dealt with Ext. ‘A’ series, rent receipts in its proper perspective to prove cultivating possession of the defendants over the suit land; 7. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.1 is the son of Dubraj Majhi through his first wife, namely, Basi and defendants 1 and 2 as well as the husband of defendant No.3 are the sons of said Dubraj through his second wife, namely, Kapura. Thus, Issue No.5 is the vital issue in the suit for determination in this appeal. 8. Admittedly, plaintiff No.1, who claims to be the son of Dubraj through his first wife, has not come to the witness box to testify his pleadings. As revealed from the impugned judgment, he was present in Court and the Court on examination found him to be hard of hearing and thus incompetent to lead evidence. DWs. 2 and 3 have also deposed that the plaintiff No.1 is little hard of hearing though not totally deaf. No material is available on record to show that he was sent for any scientific examination to reach at a conclusion that he was deaf. The Court is not competent to opine with regard to the physical disability of a witness without any assistance of scientific report, more particularly when the witnesses of the defendants deposed that he was little hard of hearing and not totally deaf. The Court is not competent to opine with regard to the physical disability of a witness without any assistance of scientific report, more particularly when the witnesses of the defendants deposed that he was little hard of hearing and not totally deaf. It further reveals from the impugned judgment that learned counsel for the defendants raised such an objection and submitted that the gesture, posture and demeanor of the witness was only intended to avoid cross-examination by the defendants. Admittedly, there is no document available on record to show that the plaintiff No.1 was totally deaf and is not competent to lead evidence. It is also not the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.1 was completely deaf and was not able to adduce any evidence nor any documentary evidence was produced to the effect. The opinion of the trial Court looking at the demeanor of the plaintiff No.1 was preliminary one and is not conclusive. The plaintiff No.1 is a vital witness to testify his relationship with Dubraj as plaintiff No.2 is not competent enough to lead evidence to that effect. Admittedly, the plaintiff No.2 has no personal knowledge about the relationship of plaintiff No.1, if any, with Dubraj. Thus, the learned trial Court ought not have dealt with such an important issue so lightly in absence of any scientific report to the effect that the plaintiff No.1 was completely deaf. Thus, this Court draws an adverse inference against the plaintiffs under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 for non-examination of plaintiff No.1. 9. Learned trial Court discussing the materials on evidence categorically found that the testimony of PWs 1 to 4 do not satisfy the test required under Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act. It has also been held by the learned trial Court that the plaintiffs have totally failed to prove the relationship of Nuna (plaintiff No. 1) with Dubraj through the testimony of PWs-1 to 4. Further, on scrutiny of evidence of PW-5, the plaintiff No.2, it appears that he was aged about 26 years at the time when he deposed in the Court. He has also no direct knowledge about the relationship of Nuna with Dubraj. He categorically deposed that he heard from his parents and from the co-villagers that Dubraj was his father’s father and Hema was his great grandfather. He also deposed that he calls defendant Nos. He has also no direct knowledge about the relationship of Nuna with Dubraj. He categorically deposed that he heard from his parents and from the co-villagers that Dubraj was his father’s father and Hema was his great grandfather. He also deposed that he calls defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as ‘Kaka’ as they are his father’s brothers. It is his deposition that he had neither seen Dubraj nor Hema. His oral testimony is conspicuously silent about relationship of Basi Majhi with Dubraj Majhi, except a solitary statement that his father was Dubraj’s son through his first wife. Thus, the vital relationship of Dubraj Majhi and plaintiff No.1 through Basi Majhi is not established. Learned trial Court in order to establish such relationship heavily relied upon Exts. 6, 7 and 8, which was brought on record at the stage of argument of the suit. Admissibility of those documents will be discussed later on. Further, learned trial Court relied upon the ROR (Ext.3) of mouza-Kudahansa recorded in the name of Nuna Majhi and Ext. 5, the sale deed dated 21.6.1935. Exhibit 3 describes Nuna Majhi as the son of Dubraj Majhi. However, that by itself does not establish the relationship of the plaintiff No.1 with Dubraj Majhi. It is more so, when the defendants alleged that Basi married to one Dubraj of Assam where she was working in the tea garden and came back to the village with Dhama Majhi, who is Basi’s sister’s (Pungi’s) husband. The P.W. 5 does not deny said fact in his deposition. Thus, it not safe to rely upon the solitary evidence of P.W. 5 to come to a conclusion that plaintiff No.1 was the son of Dubraj Majhi through Basi Majhi, his alleged first wife. 10. Exhibit Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are the certified copies of voter list of village-Kudahansa of the year 1973, 1980 and 1983 respectively. Those were admitted into evidence and marked as exhibits at the stage of the argument. Thus, defendants had no opportunity to adduce any rebuttal evidence to the same or cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiffs in that regard. Exhibits 6, 7 and 8 are public documents and admissible in evidence. But that by itself does not prove the entries made in it. Onus is on the plaintiffs to prove the entries made in Exhibits 6, 7 and 8. Exhibits 6, 7 and 8 are public documents and admissible in evidence. But that by itself does not prove the entries made in it. Onus is on the plaintiffs to prove the entries made in Exhibits 6, 7 and 8. The Court has discretion under Order 13 Rule 1 C.P.C. to accept any document produced belatedly if good cause is shown to its satisfaction. This Court in the case of Bhikari Charan Patra vs Basanti Bewa And Ors., reported in AIR 1985 Ori 49 held as under:- 11. Whereas the object of Order 13, Rule 1 is to lay down the stage when a party shall file documentary evidence so that each knows on what document the other seeks to rely and gets ready for the trial, Order 13, Rule 2 makes provision for meeting certain contingencies. The object of the rules is not to penalize the party but to secure a fair trial of the case, Where Order 13, Rule 2 is invoked mala fide, where the move is to cause delay or is vexatious, the cause shown cannot be held to be good cause shown to the satisfaction of the Court. The doors of the discretionary jurisdiction should be closed. Where, however, the document is vital and would assist the Court in coming to a decision, the doors should not be shut out.” Where however, documentary evidence is sought to be introduced, the Court has duty to scrutinize the cause shown by the party seeking introduction of documentary evidence before exercising the discretion and also to give opportunity to the adversary to explain the documents so produced by adducing rebuttal evidence. This view gets support from decisions of this Court in the case of Keshaba Padhan alias Sukru and others Vs. Mst. Padma Padhani (having died) Upasi Gurandi and others, reported in 1976 (1) CWR 154 and Property Association of Baptist Churches Private Limited and another Vs. State of Orissa and others, reported in 1984 (I) OLR 166. In the instant cases, no good reason has been assigned by learned trial Court to accept Exts. 6, 7 and 8 at the stage of argument of the suit. it is also not clear as to whether any prayer for seeking leave of the Court was made to adduce further documentary evidence at a belated stage. In the instant cases, no good reason has been assigned by learned trial Court to accept Exts. 6, 7 and 8 at the stage of argument of the suit. it is also not clear as to whether any prayer for seeking leave of the Court was made to adduce further documentary evidence at a belated stage. In addition to it, neither any opportunity was given to the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiffs on Exts. 6, 7 and 8 nor they were allowed to adduce rebuttal evidence on the same. Further, the entries in Exts. 6, 7, and 8 does not by itself conclusively prove that plaintiff No.1 was the son of Dubraj through his first wife. Learned Civil Judge has not made any endeavour to find out as to whether Basi has ever married to Dubraj. There is also no reliable evidence available on record to come to such conclusion. When the relationship of Basi and Dubraj is not proved, the plea that plaintiff No.1 was the son of Dubraj through Basi cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, the answer to Issue No.5 is erroneous and cannot be accepted. 11. Thus, Issue No.5 is answered against plaintiffs-respondents. In view of the discussion made above, it is held that plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the suit land and they are not entitled to any relief, so also the plaintiffs have no cause of action to bring the suit and the suit is not maintainable. The Issue Nos.1, 2, and 7 are answered accordingly. Issue No.4 was not pressed in the suit. In view of my answer on Issue Nos.1 and 2, Issue Nos.3 and 6 need no discussion. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree are set aside. The appeal is allowed, but in the circumstances no order as to costs.