IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1822 of 2008 MRITUNJAY KUMAR & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 10/11/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court, for the reasons spelled out in the impugned order the ultimate decision arrived at by the court below in refusing to take on records the two original registered sale deeds in the form of evidence, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error especially when there is no explanation as to why for a period of eight years the alleged mistake of the conducting lawyer was not detected. That apart, if the petitioner, being plaintiff, had sought to rely on the registered sale deeds, their copies should have been filed with the plaint being part of the requirement under order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner cannot shift their blame on their counsel specially when there documents were also not filed while framing of issues or otherwise under Order XIII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. Judged in this background these documents cannot be 2 even looked much less admitted in evidence at a stage when the suit after closure of evidence has been fixed for arguments. The trial of a suit has to proceed continue and conclude as per the norms in the C.P.C. and not on the whims and fancies of the party and if the procedure was not followed by the petitioner he must suffer. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar