IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5995 of 2010 1. AWADH BIHARI SINGH S/O LATE RAM BRIKSH SINGH R/O VILLAGE- MEHANDIA, P.S.- ARWAL, NEW MEHANDIA, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD NEW ARWAL 2. LAL BIHARI SINGH S/O LATE RAM BRIKSH SINGH R/O VILLAGE- MEHANDIA, P.S.- ARWAL, NEW MEHANDIA, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD NEW ARWAL 3. GAYANDUTTA SINGH S/O LATE RAM BRIKSH SINGH R/O VILLAGE- MEHANDIA, P.S.- ARWAL, NEW MEHANDIA, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD NEW ARWAL 4. KHADERAN SINGH S/O LATE RAM BRIKSH SINGH R/O VILLAGE- MEHANDIA, P.S.- ARWAL, NEW MEHANDIA, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD NEW ARWAL 5. SANTOSH KUMAR S/O LATE LAXHMAN SINGH R/O VILLAGE- MEHANDIA, P.S.- ARWAL, NEW MEHANDIA, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD NEW ARWAL 6. MANOJ KUMAR S/O LATE LAXHMAN SINGH R/O VILLAGE- MEHANDIA, P.S.- ARWAL, NEW MEHANDIA, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD NEW ARWAL 7. SHYAM SAROJ S/O LATE LAXHMAN SINGH R/O VILLAGE- MEHANDIA, P.S.- ARWAL, NEW MEHANDIA, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD NEW ARWAL 8. MUNI SINGH @ BINKATESH KUMAR S/O AWADH BIHARI SINGH R/O VILLAGE- MEHANDIA, P.S.- ARWAL, NEW MEHANDIA, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD NEW ARWAL 9. KRIPAL SINGH S/O LAL BIHARI SINGH R/O VILLAGE- MEHANDIA, P.S.- ARWAL, NEW MEHANDIA, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD NEW ARWAL 10. BIRENDRA SINGH S/O LAL BIHARI SINGH R/O VILLAGE- MEHANDIA, P.S.- ARWAL, NEW MEHANDIA, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD NEW ARWAL 11. CONGRESS SINGH S/O LAL BIHARI SINGH R/O VILLAGE- MEHANDIA, P.S.- ARWAL, NEW MEHANDIA, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD NEW ARWAL 12. UMESH SINGH S/O GAYANDUTTA SINGH R/O VILLAGE- MEHANDIA, P.S.- ARWAL, NEW MEHANDIA, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD NEW ARWAL. ……….PETITIONERS. Versus 1. KRISHNDEO SINGH S/O LATE NAND SINGH R/O VILLAGE- MEHANDIA, P.S.- ARWAL NEW MEHANDIA, DISTT.- JEHANABAD, NEW-ARWAL ..........DEFENDANT. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Mrigendra kumar, Advocate. 02/ 06.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the 2 petitioners challenging order dated 23.02.2010 by which Additional Munsif- 1st Jehanabad rejected their application for treating copy of the written statement of Partition Suit No. 44 of 1952 as secondary evidence in instant suit. 3. The aforesaid order was passed in Title Suit No. 01 of 1983 which was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for a declaration that the wall in dispute is the wall of plaintiff’s family and defendants had no concern with it. In the said suit pleadings were complete, issues were framed and even evidence had been going on. 4. It also transpires that an application dated 20.09.2006 was filed in Title Suit No. 01 of 1983 by defendant no. 1- petitioner for accepting written statement filed in Title Suit No. 44 of 1952 before Sub-Judge III, Gaya as Secondary evidence. The said application has been rejected by the learned court below vide its impugned order dated 23.02.2010. 5. From bare perusal of the said order, it also transpires that the Additional Munsif- 1st Jehanabad has considered the matter in detail and has rightly come to the conclusion that the said document was not a public document nor it had any seal of the court nor even there was any clear signature of lawyer or of the defendants of the earlier suit. Hence there was no material at all, to show that the aforesaid document sought to be produced by the defendants was a genuine one. 3 6. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order nor does it find any material irregularity to take a different view. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. Ranjan (S. N Hussain, J)