IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13164 of 2011 Satrughan Mahto Versus Nandu Mahto & Ors ---------------------------------- 4. 07.09.2011 The learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the provision of law. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application has been filed by the defendant petitioner against the order dated 19.1.2011 passed by Munsif (East), Muzaffarpur in Title Suit No. 37 of 1998 whereby the learned court below allowed the application filed by the plaintiff respondent for exhibiting the certified copy of the two rent suits. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after lapse of about 13 years the plaintiff has produced the said documents in the court below without assigning any reason and without explaining the relevancy of the said documents. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below found that the said documents are public documents and therefore, it has been marked as exhibit. In view of the above facts since the public documents have been marked as exhibits in my opinion the interlocutory order cannot be interfered with in the supervisory jurisdiction. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)