IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21004 of 2011 Srikant Singh Versus Mosmat Sheobala & Ors ---------------------------------- 02. 30.11.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29.07.2011 passed by Addl. Munsif VIIIth Gopalganj in title suit No.435 of 1997 whereby the Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner for expunging ext. ‘D’. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ext. ‘D’ is a death certificate which has been filed by the defendant-respondent on 14.02.2008 after closure of the evidence of the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff could not object for the same. The learned counsel further submitted that the said document was not filed with the written statement and no opportunity was granted to the petitioner. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below found that when the document was marked as exhibit ‘D’, no objection was raised by the plaintiff petitioner as the said document was marked exhibit in presence of the petitioner. Thereafter, also till the closure of the case of the - 2 - evidence, the plaintiff never prayed for opportunity to rebut the said certificate ext. ‘D’. The learned Court below also found that after closure of the evidence of the defendants, the case was posted for argument and that the death certificate is pubic document. In view of the fact that the said document was marked as an exhibit without objection of the plaintiff and no step was taken by the plaintiff for last 3 years after marking of the document and moreover, this application has been filed by the plaintiff for expunging the said exhibit, in my opinion, at this stage, the said document cannot be expunged. The relevancy or otherwise of the said document and the genuineness or otherwise of the said document shall be considered by the Court below at the time of final hearing of the suit. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to interfere with in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)