IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1928 of 2005 1. DHANU RAJAK , SON OF LATE DOMAN RAJAK. 2. BRAHMDEO RAJAK, 3. BUDHU RAJAK ALIAS RAJ BANSHI RAJAK BOTH SONS OF LATE LOCHAN RAJAK, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BIBHUTIPUR TOLA BANHAITI, P.O. AND P.S. BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR – PLAINTIFFS- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. DHANUSHDHARI RAJAK SON OF LATE LADDHU RAJAK, 2. RAM PRAKASH RAJAK, 3. RAM PRATAP RAJAK, 4. LAKHAN RAJAK, ALL SONS OF LATE BALDEO RAJAK, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BIBHUTIPUR, TOLA BANHAITI, P.O. AND P.S. BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR – DEFENDANT IST PARTY- OPPOSITE IST PARTIES. 5. RAM KARAN SINGH, SON OF LATE GAGAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHAS TABHAKA TOLA KAMRAIN, P.O. MASOORCHAK, P.S. MANSOOR CHAK, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. 6. RAJENDRA PRASAD, SON OF SUKHDEO MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- HARICHAK, P.O. HARICHAK, P.S. MANSOOR CHAK, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. – DEFENDANT 2ND PARTY- OPPOSITE 2ND PARTIES. 7. MAHENDRA MISHRA, SON OF LATE YADU NANDAN MISHRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. SURAULI, P.S. BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. ---DEFENDANT 3RD PARTY- OPPOSITE 3RD PARTIES. ----------- For the petitioners: M/s Bhupendra Narain Sinha with Shailendra Kumar, Advocates. For the Opposite Parties : M/s R.K.Mishra with Rajendra Kumar, Advocates. ------- 13/ 28-04-2011 Heard the parties. 2. It appears that in Title Suit No.31 of 1992, evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs as also on behalf of the defendants has been closed. A large number of witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs as also on behalf of the defendants. When the suit was 2 taken up for final hearing, then a petition dated 07.04.2005 was filed on behalf of the defendants 1st set stating therein that due to clerical mistake, some documents, proved in the evidence, are bearing common exhibit numbers and, therefore, that may be rectified and exhibits may be properly numbered in seriatim. Subsequently, on 09.05.2005 plaintiffs filed a separate petition making an allegation that there has been some interpolation or forgery in marking the exhibits produced on behalf of the defendants and according to them, in fact, some of the documents were not proved, yet such documents have been marked as exhibits. 3. Learned trial court, after examining the materials on record, allowed the petition dated 07.04. 2005 filed on behalf of the defendants and directed for correction of the number of exhibits produced on behalf of the defendants. When petition dated 09.05.2005 was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, learned trial court appears to have examined entire records and came to a finding that there was some mistake by his Bench clerk in marking the documents, which were produced during the course of evidence. The allegations of plaintiffs that some forgery was committed in getting some documents of the defendants marked, without that having been proved during the course of evidence, has been disbelieved by 3 learned trial court. He has also come to a finding that there appears to have been some clerical error in properly numbering the documents as exhibits, but the allegation of the plaintiffs was found completely baseless. Apparently, the learned Subordinate Judge, Rosea, who was in seisin of the suit, was the best person to find out whether some forgery was committed in record of the suit or not? He has recorded a finding of fact negativing the allegations of the plaintiffs-petitioners. 4. After hearing the parties and on examination of the materials available on record, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or material irregularity in the order impugned. Consequently, this civil revision application has to fail. 5. However, it is directed that at the time of hearing of the suit, if it transpires to the learned trial court that some documents produced by the defendants and marked as exhibits were not actually proved by any witness in evidence, then the effect of those documents may not be taken into consideration for final decision of the suit. 6. Accordingly, with the observations/directions made above, the present civil revision application is dismissed. No costs. BTiwary/ (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)