IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.612 of 2007 ----- Smt.Deokala Devi wife of Shree Vijay Kumar Yadav, resident of Benipur, P.S. Bahera, District-Darbhanga. -Defendant no.1-petitioner. Versus 1. Smt.Ram Maya Devi S/O Shree Ram Sagar Thakur, Resident of Village-Basudeopur, Majhoura, P.S. Bahera, District- Darbhanga. -Plaintiff-Opposite Party 1st Set. 2. Surendra Thakur S/O Bhagwan Thakur. 3. Ramesh Thakur S/O Surendra Thakur. 4. Awadh Kishore Thakur S/O Late Nathu Thakur. 5. Kaushal Kishore Thakur 6. Raj Thakur Both sons of Pitamber Thakur 7. Bimla Devi S/o Phuleshwar Thakur 8. Hemant Yadav 9. Arbind Yadav 10. Chanda Lal Yadav All sons of Phuleshwar Thakur 11. Sunita Devi W/O Shushil Jha, All resident of Benipur Bharat Chawk, P.S. Bahera, District- Darbhanga. -- Defendants-Opposite parties 2nd Set. ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Sushil Kumar Karn, Advocate Mr.Saroj Kumar, Advocates. For opposite party no.1 : Mr. Saghir Ahmad, Advocate. ---- 03. 07.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite party no.1. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.1- petitioner challenging order dated 14.02.2007 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Benipur (Darbhanga) directed to mark certain documents of the plaintiff as exhibits in Title Suit No.27 of 2001 (25/2005). 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiff-opposite party no.1 for declaration of her title over the suit property and for - 2 - other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was contested by the defendants, whereafter issues were framed and evidence started. 4. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record it transpires that on the basis of application dated 19.09.2006 filed by the plaintiff the learned court below vide its order 22.09.2006 directed certain documents of the plaintiff to be marked as exhibits. Subsequently while hearing the deposition of witnesses of plaintiffs, the learned court below found that the said order dated 22.09.2006 was not complied and the documents concerned were not exhibited in spite of the said order. Hence, the learned court below vide order dated 14.02.2007 directed that the said documents be exhibited. The said order dated 14.02.2007 is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. It is quite apparent that earlier order dated 22.09.2006 has attained finality as it has neither been challenged by the defendants in any higher court, nor any application for review/ modification of the said order has been filed by the defendants in the learned court below itself. Furthermore, merely marking some documents as exhibits does not mean that they are binding on court. If the documents which are sought to be marked as exhibits are not legal and proper and if they come in the category of documents which cannot be marked as exhibits and cannot be relied for deciding any issue, the defendants will be at liberty to raise the said point at the time of placing their arguments. 6. This court does not find any illegality in the - 3 - impugned order of the learned court below, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)