IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1827 of 2006 SMT.RAJ KUMARI DEVI, WIFE OF SRI RAJ KUMAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA TELBIGHA (MURLI HILL DOM TOLI) P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICT GAYA…………………………………………………………….PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER Versus 1. MOSTT.SURGI DEVI, WIDOW OF LATE KASHI MISTRI 2. SMT. POONAM DEVI, WIFE OF SRI DILIP MISTRI 3. DILIP MISTRI ALIAS DILIP KESARA, SON OF LATE KASHI MISTRI 4. NANKU MISTRI ALIAS NANKU KESARA, SON OF LATE KASHI MISTRI, ALL RESIDENS OF MOHALLA TELBIGHA (MURLI HILL DOM TOLI) P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. KOTWALI, TOWN AND DISTRICT GAYA… DEFENDANTS- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 3. 08.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision application has been filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 17.8.2006 passed by Subordinate Judge IV, Gaya in Title Suit No. 83/05 / 2008/02 by which the petition dated 24.3.2006 filed by the plaintiff for calling for the original registered sale deed from the Registry Office, Gaya, certified copy of which has already been filed in the case, has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the application of the plaintiff for calling for the original sale deed was not accepted by the trial court, the trial court can mark the certified copy of the - 2 - document as exhibit on proper proof in accordance with law. From the impugned order it appears that no such prayer was made by the plaintiff. Therefore, this civil revision application is disposed of with a liberty to the plaintiff- petitioner to file a formal application for getting the said certified copy of the original marked as an exhibit during the evidence of the plaintiff in accordance with law. If such a petition is filed by the plaintiff, the court below shall consider and pass appropriate orders on the same in accordance with law. With the above observation, the application is disposed of. B.T. (J.N. Singh, J.)