JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D.C.C. Phukan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4. None appears on call for the other respondents No.5 to 8, despite service of notice. 2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 05.12.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Morigaon in T.S.No.2/2011. By the said order, the said learned court had disallowed a petition bearing No.516/13 filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC for rejecting the prayer of the respondents No.1 to 4 /defendants No.1 to 4 to examine Dealing Assistant, Mayong Revenue Circle as the defendant witness, while by the same order, another Petition No. 621/2013, filed by the Respondents No.1 to 4/Defendants No.1 to 4 under Order XVI Rule 1(3) and Rule 1-A read with Section 151 CPC, praying for allowing them to adduce further witnesses along with original documents being two letters received from Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle as well as other information received in response to their RTI application, was allowed. 3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in TS 2/2011, pending for disposal before the Court of Civil Judge, Morigaon (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court” for brevity). The respondents No.1 to 4 who have contested this application are arrayed as Defendants No.1 to 4 in the said suit. 4. The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiff had filed the said suit claiming a decree for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant No.8 over the suit land described in Schedule-A of the plaint and for a decree over the Registered Sale Deed No.3844 dated 21.07.1980, executed by the plaintiffs and the proforma defendant No.8 in favour of the respondent No.4 in respect of the land described in Schedule-A of the plaint on the ground that it was a forged deed, and the same was liable to be declared as null and void and also for decree restraining the defendants and their agents, men, etc. to enter into the Schedule-A premises. to enter into the Schedule-A premises. The defendants No.1 to 4 had contested the suit by filing written statement and, inter alia, took a stand that the ASEB (as it was then) had applied for mutation of the suit land before the Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle by depositing the original sale deed dated 21.09.1980 and the said mutation process is pending for disposal before the revenue authorities and the copy of the original sale deed was yet to be returned by the said revenue authorities. 5. In the said suit, the Defendants No.1 to 4 had filed an application under the provisions of Order XVI Rule 1 CPC on 27.07.2011, praying for calling of two documents, viz., (i) Original Sale Deed No.3844 dated 21.07.1980 from the office of the Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle, PO. Jagibhakta Gaon, P.O. Jagiroad, Morigaon, Assam, and (ii) Register Volume of Sale Deed No.3844 dated 21.09.1980 along with the register of the vendors thereto. Prayer was also made to summon to the witnesses, namely, “Drilling Asst. in respect of Register of Volume of Sale Deed No.3844 dated 21.09.1980 and connected register of thumb impression and signature of vendors thereto.” The said prayer was allowed by the learned trial court by order dated 05.01.2012. However, no steps were taken to summon the said witness and in the meanwhile, the evidence of the defendant’s side was closed by cross examination DW-1 on 09.04.2013. The suit was fixed on the next date for argument. 6. However, by filing Petition No.262/2013 dated 23.04.2013, the defendants No.1 to 4 prayed for allowing them to summon (i) the Official of the Sub-Registry, Nagaon along with the volume of Sale Deed, and (ii) the Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle, to produce the Sale Deed dated 21.09.1980. It was projected in the said petition that the order for summoning of the witnesses was already procured but summons were not obtained. The learned trial court, by order dated 12.06.2013, allowed the said petition, thereby allowing the defendants No.1 to 4 to call for the said two witnesses to produce the Sale Deed. It was projected in the said petition that the order for summoning of the witnesses was already procured but summons were not obtained. The learned trial court, by order dated 12.06.2013, allowed the said petition, thereby allowing the defendants No.1 to 4 to call for the said two witnesses to produce the Sale Deed. However, the plaintiffs had filed petition No. 516/13 dated 29.07.2013, wherein it was stated that that as per list of witness filed by the defendants No.1 to 4, the cited witness was “Drilling Assistant” in respect of Register of Volume of Sale Deed No. Deed No. 3844 dated 21.07.1980 and the connected thumb impression and signature of the vendors. But instead of issuing notice to the cited witness, the notice was issued to wrong person, namely, “Dealing Assistant of Mayong Revenue Circle, P.O. Jagi Bhakatgaon, P.S. Jagiroad, Mouza-Gova, Dist. Morigaon, Assam”, who is not a witness as per petition No. 452/11 dated 27.07.2011 filed by the defendant. Hence, by the aforesaid petition No. 516/13, it was prayed that order be passed for rejecting the examination of the said witness. The defendants No.1 to 4 had filed their written objection and had prayed for dismissing the said petition filed by the plaintiff. However, the said petition filed by the plaintiffs had been rejected. 7. Subsequently, the defendants No.1 to 4 had filed Petition No.621/2013 under the provisions of Order XVI Rule 1(3) and Rule 1-A read with Section 151 CPC, wherein it had been stated that on 22.07.2013 and 23.07.2013, the defendants No.1 to 4 had received two letters issued by the Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle, disclosing that on enquiry it was found that the mutation case was registered as Mutation Case No.108/94-95 in between ASEB vs. Dilip Majumdar and others and also found that the Mutation Case No.108/94-95 was recorded to be allowed in their register. It was projected that the said documents and other RTI information, which came into existence at a subsequent point of time, were required to be proved by adducing further evidence. The defendants No.1 to 4 had also prayed that they may be allowed to summon the “Dealing Assistant of BKB, Investigation Division, APGCL, Jagiroad” as further DWs. The said prayer was allowed by the impugned order. The defendants No.1 to 4 had also prayed that they may be allowed to summon the “Dealing Assistant of BKB, Investigation Division, APGCL, Jagiroad” as further DWs. The said prayer was allowed by the impugned order. The said common order dated 05.12.2013, by which petition No. 516/13 was dismissed and petition No. 621/13 was allowed, is in challenge in this application. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that as per petition No. 452/11 dated 27.07.2011 filed by the defendant, the witness cited therein was “Drilling Asst. of in respect of Register of Volume of Sale Deed No. 3844 dt. 21-7-80 and connected Register of Thumb impression and signature of vendors thereto.” The said petition No. 452/11 dated 27.07.2011 was allowed by the learned trial court by order dated 05.01.2012, which had attained finality. However, no steps were taken on time to summon the cited witness. However, after the closure of the evidence of the defendants’ side, while the suit was fixed for argument on 23.04.2013, at that stage, the counsel for the defendants No.1 to 4 had filed petition No. 262/13, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 8/2013, wherein prayer was made to allow the said defendants No.1 to 4 for summoning (i) the official of the Sub- Registrar, Nagaon along with volume of Mayong Revenue Circle, and (ii) Circle Officer, Mayong to produce Sale Deed No. 3844/1980. The said prayer was allowed on the ground that permission had already been obtained by the said defendants on 27.07.2011. It is submitted that the learned trial court had failed to appreciate that the order dated 27.07.2011, was not in respect of permitting summing the two above mentioned witnesses, as such, the finding recorded in order dated 12.06.2013 was perverse. 9. It is submitted that after filing of petition No. 516/13 dated 29.07.2013 by the plaintiffs, the defendants No.1 to 4 had abandoned their effort to prove the sale deed, volume book and thumb impression register and instead, by filing petition No. 621/13 dated 04.09.2013, prayed for allowing the said defendants to examine further witnesses to prove the two letters dated 22.07.2013 and 23.07.2013 and the information dated 07.08.2013, received under RTI from Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle and for that purpose, sought for issuance of summons to the “Dealing Assistant, Office of the BKV Investigation Division, APGCL, Jagiroad, PO & PS Jagiroad, Dist. Morigaon, Assam.” 10. Morigaon, Assam.” 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that in the order dated 05.12.2013, the learned Trial Court had mentioned that the said witness, namely, Hiren Borkakati had apprised the learned Trial Court on 29.07.2013 that due to want of specification of document, he could not produce the same, yet the learned Trial Court proceeded to reject the petition No. 516/13 dated 29.07.2013 and allowed petition No. 621/13 filed by the defendants No.1 to 4, and thereby allowed the defendants No.1 to 4 to fill up the lacuna in their evidence. 11. It is also submitted that no address of the said witness was mentioned in the list of witness and that there is no employee with the designation of “Drilling Assistant” either in the office of the Sub-Registry at Nagaon or in the office of the Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle”. Yet at the appropriate stage, neither any steps were taken to mention the correct designation and address of the cited witness, nor any steps was taken at the appropriate time to summon the said witness. Therefore, when the defendants No.1 to 4 wanted to examine the “Dealing Assistant, Mayong Revenue Circle”, the plaintiffs rightly objected to his examination on the ground that he was not cited as a witness. 12. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4 (i.e. defendants No.1 to 4) has referred to their affidavit- in- opposition and submits that an incorrect picture has been portrayed by the petitioners in this case. It is stated that although the defendants No.1 to 4 had secured an order dated 05.01.2012 to summon the concerned witness, but due to inadvertence, the said witnesses could not be summoned. Thereafter, at the time of arguing the suit, when it was realized that the vital witnesses were left out to be examined, the learned Trial Court was moved to summon the said left-out witnesses. However, the petitioners are trying to take advantage of a typing mistake in mentioning the correct official designation of the witness, where instead of “Dealing Assistant”, the respondents No.1 to 4 had mentioned the same as “Drilling Assistant”. It is submitted that substantive justice could not be denied to any party for an apparently tying error in mentioning the name of the witness. It is submitted that substantive justice could not be denied to any party for an apparently tying error in mentioning the name of the witness. Hence, the impugned order dated 05.12.2013, in so far as rejection of petition No. 516/13 is concerned, the same cannot be faulted with. 13. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4 that in so far as the allowing of petition No. 621/13 is concerned, there was no sufficient ground to challenge the allowing of the said petition as because the two letters dated 22.07.2013 and 23.07.2013 and the information dated 07.08.2013, received under RTI from Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle were subsequent events and as the said documents were directly related to the defence taken in the written statement. Hence, there was no infirmity in the impugned order dated 05.12.2013 passed by the learned Trial Court. It is further submitted that the original Sale Deed No. 3844 dated 21.07.1980 was submitted by the Defendants No.1 to 4 to the Circle Officer, Mayong for mutation, but due to inadvertence, the same could not be collected and, as such, the said respondents were now required to give secondary evidence like (i) Volume Book, and (ii) thumb impression register from the Sub- Registrar’s office and they were also required to summon the concerned Circle Officer to prove the record relating to mutation of the name of the then ASEB, now Assam Power Generation Co. Ltd. in respect of the suit land. 14. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed this revision with hyper-technical approach and as the respondents No.1 to 4 (i.e. defendants No.1 to 4) was a State enterprise, for fair and just adjudication of the real issues involved in the suit, this revision ought to be dismissed by upholding the impugned order. It is further submitted that as there was no challenge to the order dated 12.06.2013, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 8/2013 arising out of petition No. 262/13, wherein prayer was made to allow the defendants No.1 to 4 for summoning (i) the official of the Sub-Registrar, Nagaon along with volume of Mayong Revenue Circle, and (ii) Circle Officer, Mayong to produce Sale Deed No. 3844/1980 and consequent order dated 12.06.2013 passed in TS No.2/2011, the present challenge to the impugned order dated 05.12.2013 was not sustainable. 15. 15. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court has revisited the sequence of events. In petition No. 452 dated 27.07.2011 (Annexure-5), which was filed by the learned counsel for the defendants No.1 to 4, a stand was taken that in the written statement of the defendants No.1 to 4, it was mentioned that the original sale deed registered as Deed No. 3844 dated 21.07.1980 had been deposited with the Circle Officer, Mayong for mutation and the same had not been returned back and was still lying with the Circle Officer. Hence, it was projected that the volume book of registered sale deed together with thumb impression register in connection with registered sale deed No. 3844 dated 21.07.1980 was necessary to be called for to prove the execution of the said Sale Deed. However, the “Drilling Assistant” instead of “Dealing Assistant” was cited as the witness. The said petition was allowed by order dated 05.01.2012, which had attained finality. No step was taken to correct the said mistake. Also no steps were taken at the appropriate time to summon the said witness. 16. Admittedly, the evidence of the defendants was closed and the suit was fixed for argument by order dated 09.04.2013. At that stage, the counsel for the defendants No.1 to 4 filed petition No. 262/13 in the suit, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 8/2013, wherein prayer was made to allow the defendants No.1 to 4 for summoning (i) the official of the Sub- Registrar, Nagaon along with volume of Mayong Revenue Circle, and (ii) Circle Officer, Mayong to produce Sale Deed No. 3844/1980. The said prayer was allowed by order dated 12.06.2013 on the ground that permission had already been obtained by the said defendants on 27.07.2011. The said order dated 12.06.2013 is not in challenge and the same has attained finality. 17. While the summoned witness, namely, Hiren Borkakati, Junior Assistant, Mayong Revenue Circle appeared before the learned Trial Court on 29.07.2013, the plaintiffs had filed petition No. 516/13 dated 29.07.2013, the circumstances of which is referred herein before. The learned Trial Court rejected the said petition No. 516/13 by the impugned order dated 05.12.2013. 17. While the summoned witness, namely, Hiren Borkakati, Junior Assistant, Mayong Revenue Circle appeared before the learned Trial Court on 29.07.2013, the plaintiffs had filed petition No. 516/13 dated 29.07.2013, the circumstances of which is referred herein before. The learned Trial Court rejected the said petition No. 516/13 by the impugned order dated 05.12.2013. In this regard, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 05.12.2013, in so far as it related to rejection of petition No. 516/13, because the said witness was summoned on the basis of the order dated 12.06.2013, thereby allowing Misc. (J) Case No. 8/2013. Consequent order was also passed in TS No. 2/2011. The said orders dated 12.06.2013, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 8/2013 and in TS No. 2/2011 had not been challenged and the said orders have attained finality. 18. In so far as the said impugned order dated 05.12.2013 is concerned, petition No. 621/13 dated 04.09.2013 under Order XV Rule 1(3) and Rule 1-A read with section 151 CPC was allowed. Thus, in terms of the prayer made in petition No. 621/13, the defendants No.1 to 4 were allowed to examine further Defendants’ witnesses along with original documents i.e. (i) Letter No. MYC.19/2012/669 dated 22.07.2013, (ii) Letter No. MYC.19/2012/678 dated 23.07.2013, as well as (iii) information received from Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle dated 07.08.2013. For the said purpose, summons was allowed to be issued to the “Dealing Assistant, Office of the BKV Investigation Division, A.P.G.C.L., Jagiroad, P.O. & P.S. Jagiroad, Dist. Morigaon, Assam.” 19. In this regard, this Court is of the considered view that the defendants No.1 to 4, having obtained an order dated 05.01.2012, did not take any steps to summon their witness at the appropriate stage. Thereafter, on realizing their mistake, the defendants No.1 to 4 filed petition No. 262/13, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 8/2013, and the said petition was allowed by order dated 12.06.2013, allowing the defendants No.1 to 4 to summon and examine (i) the official of the Sub- Registrar, Nagaon along with volume of Mayong Revenue Circle, and (ii) Circle Officer, Mayong to produce Sale Deed No. 3844/1980. Although, out of the two permitted witnesses, one of them had come, but he could not be examined owing to objection by the plaintiffs vide petition No. 516/13 dated 29.07.2013. Although, out of the two permitted witnesses, one of them had come, but he could not be examined owing to objection by the plaintiffs vide petition No. 516/13 dated 29.07.2013. However, while the said petition No. 516/13 was pending consideration, the defendants No.1 to 4 appear to have abandoned their right to examine the said witnesses, and instead, they had filed and pressed petition No. 621/13 dated 04.09.2013, proposing to now examine yet another witness i.e. “Dealing Assistant, Office of the B.K.V. Investigation Division, A.P.G.C.L., Jagiroad, P.O. & P.S. Jagiroad, Dist. Morigaon, Assam.” 20. In respect of petition No. 621/13, the learned trial court had held that by the letter dated 23.07.2013 by the Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle had stated that the Mutation Case No. 108/94-95 in between the ASEB and Dilip Kr. Majumdar and others was allowed in the Register. Accordingly, the defendants No.1 to 4 had received information to that effect through the RTI reply. Thus, relying on the case reported in 2009 (1) GLT 151, it was held that the document was directly related to the pleadings of the parties and that the letter dated 23.07.2013 was a subsequent document and foundation for non submission of the same in time and ground of its genuineness was laid by the defendants No.1 to 4 and, as such, the documents were held to be required for a just and fair decision of the case. Hence, summons to witness were directed to be issued. 21. On a perusal of the written statement filed by the respondents No.1 to 4, it does not contain any statement relating to letters dated 22.07.2013 and 23.07.2013 or about information received from Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle dated 07.08.2013. The said written statement also does not contain any statement to the effect that the Sale Deed No. 3844/1980 was lost or that the land was mutated in the name of the purchaser. Rather, the written statement contains a statement that the mutation process was pending and a further positive statement has been made to call for the said Sale Deed from the Circle Officer, Mayong. Thus, it is not the pleaded case of the defendants No.1 to 4 that their names have been mutated in the land revenue records. Rather, the written statement contains a statement that the mutation process was pending and a further positive statement has been made to call for the said Sale Deed from the Circle Officer, Mayong. Thus, it is not the pleaded case of the defendants No.1 to 4 that their names have been mutated in the land revenue records. Therefore, contrary to the finding recorded by the learned trial court, it appears that the factual foundation to exhibit the said additional documents have not pleaded by the defendants No.1 to 4 in the present case in hand. It is well settled that no amount of evidence can be looked into by a court. If one needs any authority on the same, one may refer to the case of Bachhaj Nahar V. Nilima Mandal & Anr., (2008) 17 SCC 491 . Although no opinion is expressed on the matter, but it seems that proving the letters from Circle Officer informing about passing of order of mutation may not have the same evidentiary value as that of proving the Sale Deed. Moreover, it appears that as per order dated 29.07.2013, the learned Trial Court has recorded that “A letter has been submitted on behalf of Sub-Registrar Office, Nagaon stating that as per summon they could not produce the volume since no specification has been given and as such praying for passing n.o. Seen and perused the petition. Accordingly, the defendant is asked for taking steps properly.” On the other hand, as per the impugned order dated 05.12.2013, the summoned witness had apprised the court that due to want of specification of document, he could not produce the same. 22. Therefore, from the above referred orders dated 29.07.2013 and 05.12.2013, it appears that due to absence of material particulars in the summons to witness, the relevant document could not be produced, as such, it appears that the respondents No.1 to 4 have not been diligently taking steps to prove the documents which were allowed to be called for. 22. Therefore, from the above referred orders dated 29.07.2013 and 05.12.2013, it appears that due to absence of material particulars in the summons to witness, the relevant document could not be produced, as such, it appears that the respondents No.1 to 4 have not been diligently taking steps to prove the documents which were allowed to be called for. Rather, the said respondents No.1 to 4 now appear to be abandoning their right flowing by orders dated 12.06.2013 and 05.12.2013, referred herein before, to summon the relevant witness and to prove the Sale Deed, but they are now wanting to lead further evidence relating to two letters dated 22.07.2013 and 23.07.2013 as well as information received from Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle dated 07.08.2013, which, for the reasons given herein before, are found to be beyond pleadings. 23. In view of the discussions above, the order dated 05.12.2013, in so far as it relates to allowing the summons to be issued to give evidence to prove the two letters dated 22.07.2013 and 23.07.2013 as well as information received from Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle dated 07.08.2013, the same is not sustainable as it suffers from jurisdictional error because the learned Trial Court is found to have permitted adducing of evidence on matters for which foundation has not been made in the written statement. 24. Hence, the impugned order dated 05.12.2013, in so far as by which summons has been permitted to be issued to give evidence to prove two letters dated 22.07.2013 and 23.07.2013 as well as information received from Circle Officer, Mayong Revenue Circle dated 07.08.2013, the same is set aside. The other part of the order in so far as rejection of petition No. 516/13 filed by the petitioner is concerned, the same is not interfered with. 25. This application, therefore, stands partly allowed, as indicated above. 26. The parties are left to bear their own cost. 27. The parties, viz., petitioners (i.e. plaintiffs in suit) and the respondents No.1 to 4 (i.e. defendants No.1 to 4 in suit), who are duly represented by their respective counsels, are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 08.01.2018, without any further notice and on such appearance by producing a certified copy of this order, the parties shall seek further instructions from the said learned Court.