IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1376 of 2006 LAKSHMI NARAYAN MAHTO & ORS Versus RAM PRASAD MAHTO & ORS ----------- 2. 14.11.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order rejecting the prayer of defendant-petitioners for production of certain documents by plaintiff-opposite parties does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, especially when the court below has recorded a reason that the suit in hand is of the year 1989 and is pending at the stage of argument after closure of evidence of both the sides. The plea of the counsel for the petitioners that the necessity for such document to be brought on evidence arose on account of paragraph 29 of the plaintiff’s evidence is only to be noted for its being rejected. In paragraph 29 of the deposition in course of cross-examination the plaintiff has taken a plea with regard to certain property as his self acquired property. If the sale deeds therein have been mentioned on the questions asked by the petitioners in course of cross-examination, the petitioners 2 cannot now take advantage and ask those documents to be produced, especially when the counsel for the petitioners submits that they are not even part of the suit property. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and this application being wholly misconceived is hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/