IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.101 of 2009 ***** BASDEO MAHTO @ BASUDEO MAHTO, S/o Late Femu Mahto, R/o Village – Mohalla Noniapatti, P.S. – Naugachia, Distt. – Bhagalpur…………….Defendant/Petitioner Versus 1. NARESH MAHTO, S/o Late Kashik @ Ram Chandra Mahto, R/o Village – Mohalla Noniapatti, P.S. – Naugachia, Distt. – Bhagalpur……………………………...Plaintiff/Opp.Party 1st Set, 2. Kania Devi, W/o Late Sukhdeo Mahto, R/o Village – Mohalla Noniapatti, P.S. – Naugachia, Distt. – Bhagalpur, 3. Gayatri Devi, W/o Rameshwar Mahto, At and P.O. Nath Nagar Garh Kachahari Manskamna Thana, Distt. Bhagalpur, 4. Tila Devi, W/o Buto Mahto, At and P.O. Marar, P.S. Marar, Distt. – Khagaria, 5. Menga Devi, W/o Manoj Mahto, At and P.O. and P.S. Majhaul, Distt. – Begusarai, 6. Gita Devi, W/o Kuldip Mahto, At and P.O. Nath Nagar Garh Kachahari Mankamna Thana, Distt. – Bhagalpur, 7. Rita Devi, W/o Jitendra Mahto, 8. Deoki Devi, W/o Ram Pd. Mahto, 9. Rinki Mahto, son of Late Lakhan Mahto, All are residents of Village – Bari Nagar, Ashram Tola, Barahagola Road, P.S. – Barari, Distt. Katihar ………………………………..Defendants / Opp. Party 2nd Set. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Rajeev Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the Opposite Party No. 1:- Ms. Sarita Kumari and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Advocates. ******** 6. 02.03.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 1. Learned counsel for the defendant -petitioner submits that after closure of evidence, the suit was posted for hearing of final submissions on behalf of the parties. Then a petition dated 19.11.2008 was filed by the plaintiff, for marking as exhibit, the certified copy of the judgment / order of acquittal passed in Complaint 2 Case No. 239/1999 which was allowed by the impugned order and the document had been marked as Exhibit-`C’. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the aforesaid prayer was erroneously allowed by the court below at this belated stage. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 1 submits that earlier, written statement was filed by one of the defendants. A complaint case was lodged by another defendant alleging therein that forged written statement had been filed before the court below. In that complaint case judgment of acquittal had been passed and, therefore, that becomes a relevant document. That apart it is also a public document as the same is the certified copy of the judgment of a court. In view of the above I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. This Civil Revision is dismissed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )