IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1603 of 2008 INDU SHARMA @ SMT. INDU SHARMA & ORS Versus MOSTT.SHANTI SHARMA @ SHANTI & ORS ----------- 2 19.9.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court, when 36 sale deeds were sought to be brought on record for its being exhibited at the fag end of the hearing of the suit (in fact at the stage of argument), the Court below was required to look into the pleadings on record and the reasons of the plaintiff for not producing such document either by way of compliance of Order VII Rule 14 or at the time of the framing of issue i.e. Order XIII Rule 1. The Court below however, has given no reason much less cogent reason for allowing all these documents to be taken into evidence. Merely because the registered sale deeds are claimed to be public document by itself will not be a valid ground for allowing such documents to be taken on record by way of evidence unless the Court is also satisfied from the pleadings on record explaining as with regards to its being not available to the plaintiff despite their due diligence in producing them at the appropriate stage of the hearing of the suit as explained above. In that view of the matter, the impugned order allowing the plaintiffs to adduce 36 sale deeds in 2 evidence is apparently vitiated by jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the Court below to re-consider the application of the plaintiffs-opposite parties and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this civil revision application is allowed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)