IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.913 of 2007 SUKDEO MISHRA Versus RAMEKBAL SINGH & ANR ----------- 2. 6.1.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the plaintiff petitioner having failed to discharge his duty as ingrained in Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. and yet again at the stage of framing of issues under Order 13 Rule 1 C.P.C. cannot claim right to produce a document as and when he would like to file it for the purposes of its being taken on record by way of evidence. From paragraph 3 of the plaint it is absolutely clear that the Yadayastha Batwara document was the basis of the suit and about which in paragraph 16 of the written statement there was a specific averment to the effect that that no such Batwara had taken place and any such alleged Yadayastha Batwara must be and is a forged and fabricated document. Despite a clear averment to this effect the plaintiff petitioner had proceeded in hearing of the suit without adducing the document in 2 evidence, inasmuch as the evidence of the plaintiff came to be closed on 19.9.2006. Thereafter the defendants also closed their evidence on 21.11.2006 and it is only thereafter on 15.12.2006 an application was filed by plaintiff-petitioner for allowing such document of the year 1340 Fasli (document of Yadayastha Batwara) to be taken on record alongwith a copy of the Khatiyan as his evidence. The court below has allowed the prayer of the petitioner with regard to copy of the Khatiyan treating it to be a public document but at the same time it has refused to accept the other documents namely a private document of the nature of Yadayastha Batwara on the ground that such document could not be taken on record due to closure of evidence of the parties and belated filing thereof by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner was quite emphatic that as a matter of fact the same was an admitted document and therefore there was no difficulty for the court to allow the same to be admitted in evidence. Counsel for the defendant-opposite 3 parties, however, has rightly relied on paragraph 16 of the written statement to show that there was no question of admitting the said Yadayastha Batwara of the year 1340 Fasli. That apart if the plaintiff- petitioner did not follow the mandate of law and did not chose to produce the document at the time of filing of the suit in terms of Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. and yet again defaulted in producing the original thereof at the time of framing of the issues in terms of Order 13 Rule 1 C.P.C. there was no obligation for the court to give further indulgence to him, especially when the document in question was never sought to be proved in accordance with law. A document of Yadayastha Batwara was also not a public document so as to be admitted in evidence without any formal proof. The court below, therefore, having noted that the evidence of the plaintiff- petitioner was closed on 19.9.2006, did not commit any jurisdictional error in refusing the prayer of the petitioner so far it related to admitting the said document of 4 Yadayastha Batwara in evidence. This Court would also not find any error in such approach of the court below. Accordingly, this application being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/