1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1609 of 2007 ----------- 1. Sahodari Devi, wife of Sri Dhupen Singh 2. Rampari Devi, wife of Sri Hanshal Singh 3. Lakhan Singh, son of late Bengali Singh 4. Smt. Chinta Devi, w/o Sri Chandra Bhan Singh All residents of village Sakarpura, P.S. Dhanarua, P.O. Barani, District Patna. …….Defendants-Petitioners. Versus Rajnandan Bind, son of late Ram Brichh Bind, resident of Village Pakri, P.S. Masaurhi, District Patna. …….Plaintiff-Opposite Party. ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : None. ----- 04/ 06.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of the defendants-petitioners challenging order dated 16.07.2007, by which the learned Munsif, Masaurhi, Patna, rejected their petition for directing the ex-Zamindar to produce twelve documents in Title Suit No. 06 of 1999. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff- opposite party for declaration of his title and for other ancillary reliefs with respect to the suit property. It appears that thereafter pleadings were complete, issues were framed and evidence were led by both the parties and were closed. It further transpires that only when the arguments in the suit started the defendants- petitioners filed a petition dated 10.07.2007 for directing the ex- intermediary to produce twelve documents in the suit and for issuance of Dasti summons for that purpose. 4. It may be stated in this connection that the ex- 2 intermediary Raj Kishore Singh was himself defendant no.5 in the suit along with the petitioners, who were defendants no. 1 to 4 therein. Furthermore the plaintiff opposite party himself opposed the abovementioned petition of defendants no.1 to 4 (petitioners). 4. The learned court below considered the entire matter in detail and specifically found that since the ex- intermediary was a co-defendant as defendant no.5 the petitioners, namely defendants no. 1 to 4 could have taken steps for production of the said documents before settlement of the issues, but strangely enough the petitioners filed the said petition not only after the settlement of issues rather also after the evidence of both the parties were closed. The learned court below after considering the entire facts and circumstances also came to the conclusion that the said documents were not relevant for deciding the issues involved in the suit and the prayer of the petitioners was not in accordance with Order XIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )