IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1575 of 2007 HASSAN IMAM & ANR Versus MD.MUSTKIM @ MUSSAN ----------- 2. 29.8.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. The plea of the petitioner against the impugned order rejecting acceptance of certain documents in evidence though looking to be very simple has infact a far reaching effect. The deposition of the plaintiff witness, P.W.6 was completed on 11.1.2005 and when the said witness was confronted with the question as to whether any document in support of his statement was there or not, he had said that there was such document and in fact he could produce it. The matter in fact thereafter was never raised by the plaintiff nor the documents as claimed by P.W.6 was filed by them. The case proceeded and after the plaintiffs had closed their evidence the defendants too completed their evidence and infact when the case was pending for argument an application seeking adducing those documents referable to the deposition of P.W.6 into evidence was filed after almost 2 ½ years on 29.6.2007. In that view of the matter, the court below 2 was perfectly justified in rejecting such prayer because now if those documents were to be taken into evidence, the defendants were to be also afforded an opportunity to adduce both oral and/or documentary evidence which in fact would have meant reopening of hearing of the suit from scratch and going into a reverse direction from the stage of argument. If such recourse was not permitted by the court below by the impugned order the same cannot be held to be a jurisdictional error. In such circumstances, this Court normally would not have interfered with the impugned order but then the plea of interest of justice raised by the counsel of the petitioner has appealed this Court to a larger extent. This Court is of the view that what was partially stated by P.W.6 in his deposition must be allowed to be completed by the plaintiff by giving them an opportunity to produce those documents and taking them into evidence, especially when the counsel for the petitioner has himself offered to compensate the contesting defendant-opposite parties by paying any 3 reasonable amount of cost as may be fixed by this court. Considering the whole aspect of the matter, this Court would direct the court below to take the documents in question on record by allowing the plaintiff-petitioners to adduce them in evidence in accordance with law subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the contesting defendants within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. In the event the petitioners furnish proof of such payment of cost of Rs. 5000/- within the aforementioned prescribed period, the court below will allow the petitioners to adduce those documents in evidence in accordance with law which must be completed within one month of payment of cost. It goes without saying that the defendants will also be given an opportunity to lead their additional evidence confined to those documentary evidence of the plaintiff and they too must complete it within one month from the date of closing of evidence by the plaintiff. The eviction suit of the year 4 2003 in any event must be disposed of by the court below within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/