IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9169 of 2011 Lalan Singh Versus Yamuna Pandey & Ors ----------- 3. 28.06.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. This writ application has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against a part of the order dated 28.4.2011 passed by the Sub Judge – I, Aurangabad in Title Suit No. 86 of 2007 as contained in Annexure-3 whereby, the learned court below rejected the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner to call for the Executive Engineer for his examination in the case for denying Ext. D exhibited on behalf of the defendants-respondents. From perusal of the record it appears that Ext. D is public document and, therefore, it was marked as exhibit. The said Ext. D was obtained under Right to Information Act, 2005. It further appears that the learned court below has allowed to examine Anchal Amin because the report submitted by Anchal Amin is not public document. From perusal of the impugned judgment it appears that the learned court below has given good reason for not allowing the prayer of the petitioner regarding examination of Executive Engineer. Therefore, it is not a fit case for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)