IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15860 of 2011 Amrendra Kumar Singh & Anr Versus Babloo Kumar & Ors ---------------------------------- 2. 16.09.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. By this writ application order dated 14.6.2011 passed by Sub Judge-4th, Vaishali at Hazipur in Partition Suit No. 309 of 2005 has been challenged by the defendant Nos. 21 and 22 only. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below has directed that the public documents to be marked as exhibit in the case. According to the learned counsel Ext. 4 is certified copy of the compromise application which could not have been marked as an exhibit without giving chance to the petitioners to rebut. By the impugned order the learned court below has only received the document in evidence and it has been observed that the reliability or otherwise of all these documents shall be considered at the time of hearing of the suit. It is well settled principles of law that receiving a document in evidence or marking a document as an exhibit will not mean that the court below must rely on the said documents. Therefore, the learned court below has rightly observed that the relevancy or reliability of the document shall be considered at the time of hearing. In such view of the matter the petitioners have got their right to rebut in 2 their evidence as has been admitted by the learned counsel that the defendants are yet to adduce their evidence. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this writ application. Accordingly, with the above observation this writ application is disposed of. S.S. ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. )