IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17543 of 2011 Hare Ram Singh & Anr Versus Yogendra Singh & Anr ---------------------------------- 02. 30.09.2011. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the fag end of the trial, the Court below is directed to accept the documents as evidence in the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted at such belated stage, the learned Court below could not have accepted the documentary evidences filed by the respondent. In Sarvanand Paswan Vs. Mahendra Prasad Singh reported in 1999 (1) P.L.J.R. 119, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the provisions of Order 13 should be liberally construed, even if there was any delay in filing documents, the Court should take a lenient view in condoning the delay. Here after amendment, the Court has wide power to receive the document as provided under Order 7 Rule 14, so far the plaintiffs are concerned and so far the defendants are concerned, it is provided under Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the Court has the jurisdiction to receive the documentary evidences, if it is necessary for just decision in the - 2 - case and on the ground of delay only, the Court should not refuse to receive the document as evidence. It is well settled that receiving of document in evidence will not mean that the Court has relied upon said document. The relevancy or otherwise or genuineness or otherwise of the document can be considered at the time of final hearing of the suit. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order and, therefore, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)