1. ' Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as for the respondent.
2. ' The appellant has asserted that Suit bearing No,254 of 2006 was filed by him against the respondent on the original side of this Court pertaining to the Plots bearing Nos. C/8, C/9 and C/10; an application under Order XXXIX Rules, 1 and 2 C.P.C. Was also filed by the plaintiff/appellant in the said suit with a prayer to issue temporary injunction against the defendant/respondent not to disturb his leasehold rights in the said plots.
3. ' So also, an application was filed by the defendant/respondent before the learned Single Judge praying therein that the said Plot Nos. C/9 and C/10 having been wrongly mentioned in the plaint by the plaintiff/appellant, therefore, the same may be deleted from the plaint as well as from the notice, dated 16-3-2006, issued by the Assistant Registrar No,2 of this Court. Learned single Judge allowed the said application in the terms, "in the light of the above, in the interest of justice C.M.A.
4. No,6174 of 2006 is allowed as prayed" without recording satisfactory reasons as to why the said application needed to be allowed.
5. ' It is settled principle of law that the documents, which may be filed by the plaintiff with the plaint of the suit, are to be presumed to be correct so far its contents are concerned, until and unless satisfactory material comes on the record to record satisfactory findings, that too in a very clear term, that one or more documents so attached with the plaint of the suit are not to be acted upon or not to be given any importance.
6. ' The plaintiff/appellant claims leasehold rights in the plots, as described by him in the memo. Of the plaint, and is to be afforded with due opportunity to produce evidence in support of the contents of the plaint of the suit. Till such an opportunity is afforded to him, no adverse order can be passed against the contents of documents so filed by him.
7. ' Under the circumstances, this High Court Appeal is hereby admitted as well as allowed and impugned Order, dated 4-1-2008, insofar as it allowed C.M.A. No,6174 of 2006, is set-aside, but the parties shall be at liberty to further agitate their respective points of view, as to the leasehold rights in the plots in dispute, as claimed by the plaintiff/appellant, before the learned single Judge.