IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12580 of 2011 Sashak Deo Narayan Singh Versus Baidhnath Prasad & Ors ---------------------------------- 2. 24.08.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.5.2011 passed by the Sub Jduge-5th, Siwan in Title Suit No. 606 of 2008 whereby the learned court below marked two documents as exhibits under Section 90 of the Evidence Act on the ground that the documents are 30 years old. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far rent receipt is concerned he has got no objection but so far the other document marked as Annexure 2 to this writ application is concerned according to the learned counsel it is forged, fabricated, created and false document and therefore, the learned court below should not have marked the same as exhibit. From perusal of the impugned judgment it appears that the learned court below has only marked the documents as exhibit in view of the provisions as contained in Section 90 as the documents are 30 years old. So far the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned those are the points that can 2 be raised at the time of final hearing of the application because at this stage the documents have only been received in evidence. Receiving of the documents as evidence do not mean that the learned court below must rely upon the said documents. If any such ground is raised by the petitioner at appropriate stage the learned court below shall consider the same. However, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)