IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.166 of 2009 ANAND MAHTO, SON OF LATE GAJENDRA MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – GOHA, P.S. HASANPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR ------- DEFENDANT-1ST SET-PETITIONER Versus SMT. KIRAN KUMARI DEVI 1. SMT. PUNAM DEVI BOTH DAUGHTERS OF RAM KRISHNA MAHTO, RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-MALDAH, P.S. HASANPUR, DISTRICT – SAMASTIPUR. ------- (DEFENDANT-2ND SET) OPPOSITE PARTIES 1ST SET. 2. SACHIDANAND MAHTO, S/O LATE RAM DUTTA MAHTO 3. SACHIDANAND MAHTO, S/O LATE RAM DUTTA MAHTO 4. BINOD KUMAR MAHTO, S/O SACHIDANAND MAHTO 5. CHANDRA KALA DEVI 6. GULAB DEVI OPPOSITE PARTIES NO. 5 AND 6 ARE DAUGHTERS OF LATE RAM DUTTA MAHTO.OPPOSITE PARTIES No. 3 TO 6 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PUSAHO, P.S. HASANPUR, AT PRESENT P.S. BITHAN, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. ----(DEFENDANT 3RD SET)-OPPOSITE PARTY 2ND SET. 7. BIMLENDRA PRASAD MAHTO, S/O LATE TARNI PRASAD MAHTO 8. TUNA DEVI, D/O BACHAN PASWAN 9. RASBATI DEVI W/O SITARAM PASWAN OPPOSITE PARTIES NO. 7 TO 9 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – GOHA, P.S. HASANPUR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR -------(DEFENDANT 4TH SET) OPPOSITE PARTY 3RD SET. 10. BINDA DEVI WIFE OF SRI BALESHWAR VERMA, R/O VILLAGE – GANGRAHOUR, MOHANPUR, P.S. BAKHARI, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. 11. RAM BIHARI MAHTO, S/O CHATURBHUJ MAHTO 12. SUBOTH KUMAR MAHTO 13. MANOJ KUMAR MAHTO 14. SAROJ KUMAR MAHTO ALL OPPOSITE PARTIES NO. 11 TO 14 ARE SONS OF RAM BIHARI MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MEGHOUL, P.S. MEGHOUL, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR --------(OPPOSITE PARTIES NO. 10 TO 14- PLAINTIFFS)OPPOSITE PARTIES 4TH SET. 15. KUNDAN MAHTO 16. PAPU MAHTO BOTH SONS OF LATE GAJENDRA MAHTO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GOHA, P.S. HASANPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. --------(OPPOSITE PARTIES NO. 15-16 DEFENDANT 1ST SET)-OPPOSITE PARTIES-5TH SET. ----------- - 2 - For the petitioner : Mr. Dharnidhar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh No. 2, Adv. For the opposite party No. 1. : Mr. Surya Narayan Roy, Adv. --------- 5. 16/2/2009 Heard Mr. Dharnidhar Mishra for the petitioner and Mr. Surya Narayan Roy for the opposite party No. 1. The defendant 1st set-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2008 passed by Sub Judge-2nd, Rosera Samastipur, in Partition Suit No. 52 of 1997 whereby his prayer for bringing on record certain documents by marking exhibits has been refused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents in question are necessary for the determination of lis between the parties and since evidence was yet to be closed on behalf of the defendant 1st set, the court below should have given one indulgence for bringing the documents concerned on record. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 submits that in Misc. Appeal 243 of 2005, a Bench of this Court by order dated 21.1.2008 has already directed the court below to conclude the trial within three months. He further submits that no steps were taken by the petitioner on earlier occasion and after examination of 31 witnesses on his behalf, the petition in issue was filed. The trial court, on having considered the rival submissions, has come to the conclusion that the documents concerned are not necessary for determining the issue between - 3 - the parties and hence, has rejected the prayer. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. S.Ali (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)