IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.257 of 2006 MOST.SHANTI DEVI & ORS Versus DILIP KUMAR & ORS ----------- 8 24/6/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the opposite parties including counsel for D.R. Guardian. Counsel for the petitioners in course of submission submits that this civil revision application is being confined to that part of the order dated 28.11.2005 whereby and whereunder the court below has rejected the application of the petitioners for calling certain documents from the court of Munsif-II, Patna. He also says that he is not pressing this civil revision application against the second part of the order whereby and whereunder the same court had rejected taking into evidence certain documents which were sought to be admitted in evidence. The application filed for this purpose by the petitioners before the court below would go to show that the petitioners wanted the following documents to be called for, namely :- 1. Original receipt of Electric Bill in the name of Shyam Babu Yadav- 2 pages. 2. Original receipt of tax of Patna Municipal Corporation. 3. Certified copy of order sheet dated 7.9.94 in Mutation Appeal No. 78/91 of Holding no. 538 B passed by Deputy Administrator, 2 Patna Municipal Corporation, Shyambabu Yadav Vrs. Dilip Kumar. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed such an application in terms of order XVIII, Rule 17 A of the Code of Civil Procedure and the court below has committed a material irregularity in rejecting such prayer while passing the impugned order. Counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand submits that in the given circumstance order 18 Rule 17 A of the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable as the stage of leading evidence had not commenced. This Court on perusal of the materials on record as also after hearing the parties finds that the provisions under Order XVIII Rule 17 A of the C.P.C. was neither applicable nor did the petitioner satisfy the requirement therein which mandated him to satisfy the court that after exercise of due diligence such evidence was not within the knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when he was leading evidence. As a matter of fact in the application which was filed by the petitioners there is no averment muchless any material on the basis of which the court below could have been satisfied with regard to fulfillment of the aforementioned requirement of law under order 18 Rule 17 A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, there is no merit in this 3 application and the same is accordingly dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar