IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12277 of 2011 Imam Sah Versus Bibi Idan Khatoon & Ors ----------- 10. 22.11.2011 I have heard the learned counsel, Mr. Raghav Prasad on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Chandrakant on behalf of the respondent. (2) By the impugned order dated 18.05.2011 passed by Munsif II, Siwan in title suit no.263 of 1989, the learned Court below has refused to examine one Jhulan Prasad as defendant witness. (3) From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the only ground for rejection of the prayer is that the plaintiff denied the execution of the document which was sought to be proved by the witness, Jhulan Prasad. It further appears that the suit is of the year 1989 and the document which was sought to be proved by the petitioner came into existence during the pendency of the suit in the year 2003. Therefore, because of this subsequent event, it was incumbent upon the Court to have considered this fact. It further appears that the learned Court below observed that there is no pleading regarding this document. So far this observation is concerned also, admittedly it came into existence subsequently after filing the pleadings. The Court below also found that this document came into existence during 2 the pendency of the suit, therefore, whether it is genuine or forged or fabricated is a matter to be considered at the time of final hearing. The Court should not have refused to examine the witness on the ground that the plaintiff denies the execution. At this stage while the parties are adducing evidence, the Court is not required to go into the correctness or otherwise of the evidence either oral or documentary. At the time of final hearing, the Court can look into these matters and can consider the effect of the document. It further appears that the examination-in-chief of the said witness, Jhulan Prasad has also been filed. I, therefore, find that there was no reason to refuse to allow the examination of the said witness. The reason assigned by the Court below is not acceptable. (4) In my opinion, therefore, the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error. The Court below has not exercised a jurisdiction vested in it by law and it may cause injustice. Therefore, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to examine Jhulan Prasad as witness and the respondent may cross-examine him. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)