IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1937 of 2006 1. UPENDRA LALL TANTI, 2. Surya Tanti, 3. Tilli Tanti, All sons of Late Chhote Lal Tanti and residents of Mohalla – Bari Ashikpur, P.S. East Colony, Jamalpur, P.O. Jamalpur, Distt. Munger ………………….. Defendatns / Petitioners Versus BHOLA MANJHI, S/o Hiraman Manjhi, R/o Mohalla - Bari Ashikpur, P.S. East Colony, Jamalpur, P.O. Jamalpur, Distt. Munger …………………………………………………... Plaintiff / O.Party. ----------- 2. 21.07.2009. Heard Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party. Petitioners are aggrieved by a part of the impugned order dated 8.8.2006, passed by the Sub judge 1st, Munger in Title Suit No. 153/98, whereby some of the documents produced by the petitioners had been refused to be marked as exhibits by the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a petition was filed for marking certain certified copies of the public documents as no formal proof of the same was required. However, the court below had only marked the documents as described in Claim No. A, E & G whereas other documents had not been allowed to be marked as exhibits. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the court has rightly rejected the prayer for allowing those 2 documents to be brought on record as they are not related with the suit property and there was no relevancy apparent from the pleadings of the parties with regard to such property. Learned counsel drew attention of the Court towards the order dated 16.10.2006 to point out that the petitioners had again filed a petition for self same relief but the same was dismissed by the aforesaid order but the aforesaid subsequent order has not been challenged by the petitioners. The court below after hearing the parties has allowed certain documents of the petitioners to be brought on record whereas it rejected the prayer with respect to others on the ground that they are not relevant as per the pleadings of the parties and are not related with the suit property. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the court below warranting interference by this Court in its civil revisional jurisdiction. This Civil Revision is, accordingly, dismissed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )