IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No. 214 of 2007 1. Shyam Narayan Bhagat, S/o Late Mannu Bhagat 2. Dinesh Bhagat S/o Shyam Narayan Bhagat, residents of Mohalla Rampur, P.S. Rampur, Town and District Gaya………………………Defendant Nos.1 and 2-Petitioners. Versus 1. Shyampari Rao @ Shyampati Rao W/o Late Ganga Rao 2. Subhas Chandra Rao S/o Late Ganga Rao. Both residents of Mohall Rampur, P.S. Rampur, District Gaya. …Plaintiffs-Opposite Party 1st set. 3. The Gaya Municipal Corporation, Gaya through its Administrator. ……Defendant No.3-Opposite Party 2nd set. For the petitioner : Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Opp.Parties : None. ----------- 02/ 07.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This civil revision has been filed by defendant nos.1 and 2- petitioners challenging order dated 08.12.2006 by which the learned Munsif-I, Gaya rejected their petition for calling the original draft khatian from the authority concerned in Title Suit No.32 of 2002. The aforesaid title suit was filed by plaintiffs-opposite party nos.1 and 2 for declaration that new plot no.5204 had been carved out from plot nos.5332 and 5333 as the common passage of the plaintiffs and defendant no.2 and for injunction as well as for other ancillary reliefs. It transpires that after completion of the pleadings the issues were framed in the title suit and the evidence of the plaintiffs have been completed and closed. It transpires that defendants-petitioners filed a petition on 28.06.2006 claiming that the original draft khatian be called for as 2 they had already filed certified copy of the said draft khatian. The said application was contested by the plaintiffs, who also filed their rejoinder. The learned court below after fully considering the claims of the parties and the materials on record came to the conclusion that draft khatian was not a public document and it was not admissible in evidence. The learned court below further found no occasion for calling the original draft khatian, which was not even final and it was for them to prove their respective claims and pleadings by evidence, oral and documentary. This court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)