IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.210 of 2009 1. RAMASHRAY YADAV, SON OF LATE SITA YADAV 2. DINESH YADAV 3. UMESH YADAV BOTH NO. 2 AND 3 ARE SONS OF RAMASHRAY YADAV. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TARAR TOLA IMAMGANJ, P.O. TARAR, POLICE STATION DAUDNAGAR, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. ------ DEFENDANTS/PETITIONERS Versus 1. DHANBARTI KUER@DHANBARTI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE JAIPAL YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TARAR TOLA IMAMGANJ, P.O. TARAR, POLICE STATION DAUDNAGAR, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. 2. KESHIA DEVI, D/O LATE JAIPAL YADAV WIFE OF KAMESHWAR YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAM NAGAR, P.O. RAM NAGAR, POLICE STATION OBRA, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TARAR TOLA IMAMGANJ, P.O. TARAR, DISTRICT-AURANGABAD. ----PLAINTIFFS/OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Dhrub Narayan, Adv. Mr. Abhishek, Adv. For the opposite parties : None. ------- 2. 9/2/2009 Heard Mr. Dhrub Narayan, Senior Advocate to the petitioners. Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2008 passed by the Fast Track Court –I, Aurangabad, in Title Appeal No. 54 of 2007/03 of 2008 whereby the lower appellate court has allowed certified copy of the Cadestral Survey Khatiyan and certified copy of the Voter list of the year 1983 to be marked as Exhibit being the public document at the behest of the plaintiffs-appellants-opposite parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these - 2 - documents were filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties in the partition suit itself which was pending before Sub Judge-3, Aurangabad, but they did not take any step to bring those documents on record as exhibit thereto. Therefore, submission is that his endeavour to bring all those documents on record at the appellate stage should have been refused by the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court while disposing of the petition of the defendants-appellants-opposite parties to the aforesaid extent has come to the conclusion that the documents required to be brought on record as exhibits, are public documents and also that the same are quite essential for the adjudication of lis and, thus, it has allowed the aforesaid documents to be brought on record after imposing cost of Rs. 250/- upon the appellants to be paid to the respondents. I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 12.12.2008. As a result this Civil Revision application is dismissed. S.Ali (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)