IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.124 of 2008 SHYAM BABU PRASAD SON OF LATE ADITYA PRASAD RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SHUKLAGALI, SHEOGANJ P.S. ARRAH TOWN P.O. ARRAH DISTT. BHOJPUR ----- DEFENDANT-PETITIONER Versus 1. CHINTAN JAIN SON OF NYAIN CHAND JAIN RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MAHAJANTOLI NO.1, SHEOGANJ P.S. ARRAH TOWN P.O. ARRAH DISTT. BHOJPUR ---------PLAINTIFF-OPPOSITE PARTY 1ST SET. 2. LAL BABU PRASAD 3. GOPAL PRASAD 4. RAM BABU PRASAD 5. BHAGAWATI PRASAD SONS OF LATE ADITYA PRASAD ALL RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA SHUKLAGALI SHEOGANJ P.S. ARRAH TOWN DISTT. BHOJPUR. --------DEFENDANTS OPPOSITE PARTIES 2ND SET. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ram Krishna Singh, Advocate For the opposite parties : None. --------- 6. 28/2/2009 Heard Mr. Ram Krishna Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this case was made analogous with Civil Revision No. 2465 of 2007 and thus, both of them should be heard together. Perused the records of Civil Revision No. 2465 of 2007 disposed of on 1.9.2008. A Bench of this Court while disposing of Civil Revision No. 2465 of 2007 vide order dated 1.9.2008 has observed as follows:- “Heard counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner on an earlier occasion has submitted that the impugned order dated 4.10.2007 being in two parts. He had filed two Civil Revision applications namely the present one and Civil Revision No. 124 of 2008. On such - 2 - submission, this Court had directed for listing of Civil Revision No. 124 of 2007 vide order dated 28.8.2008. Today, when the records of Civil Revision No. 124 of 2008 has been placed before this Court, it is found that the same has already been dismissed on account of non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 26.2.2008”. xx xx xx xx xx Therefore, since aforesaid Civil Revision No. 2465 of 2007 already stands disposed of, question of hearing both these Civil Revision analogously does not arise now. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this Civil Revision, the defendant-petitioner is aggrieved by part of order dated 4.10.2007 whereby the second Subordinate Judge, Bhojpur, Ara, has allowed the petition dated 21.9.2007 filed by the plaintiffs for taking into evidence certain documents including the rent receipts. It is contended that the plaintiffs were obliged to take such steps on earlier occasion only and at this belated stage, the Court was devoid of any power to allow the aforesaid documents to be produced as evidence specially in view of certain amendments which have been introduced in the Code of Civil Procedure since 1.7.2002. The trial court upon hearing the rival submissions has held that the plaintiff’s prayer cannot be declined merely on the basis of technicalities and on having satisfied with the valid reasons for not producing the documents at proper stage, has allowed the prayer of the plaintiff subject to the payment of cost - 3 - of Rs. 200/-. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to a decision of this Court in Dukhan Rai & Another Vrs. Mahendra Raj & Ors. reported in 2007 (3) PLJR, Page 8. It has been held in the aforesaid decision that even after deletion of order XVIII Rule 17A by the Amendment Act of 1999 (Act 46 of 1999), Court has inbuilt power to permit party to produce evidence at subsequent stage in the interest of justice. In view of the above, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the part of the impugned order dated 4.10.2007 which is under challenge in this Civil Revision. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. S.Ali (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)