IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.67 of 2008 Ram Udgar Rai son of Late Kameshwar Rai, resident of village Simaria, P.S. Barauni, District Begusarai at present residing at Krishnapuri, ward No.21 within Municipal Area, Begusarai, P.S. Begusarai, District Begusarai. ………Plaintiff-Petitioner. Versus 1. Subhash Chandra Poddar @ Subhash Poddar son of Late Ram Charitra Poddar 2. Uday Shankar Poddar @ Rajesh Kumar Poddar 3. Hari Shankar Poddar @ Harinanddan Poddar 4. Pankaj Kumar Poddar @ Phatia 5. Kundan Kumar Poddar All sons of Subhash Chandra Poddar @ Subhash Poddar 6. Manorma Devi W/o Subhash Chandra Poddar All 1 to 6 are residents of village & P.O. Simaria, P.S. Barauni, District Begusarai at present residing at Refinery Township Quarter No.D2/F-21, P.O. Barauni Refinery Township, P.S. Nager, District Begusarai, ……….Defendants-Opposite parties. For the petitioner : M/s Mathura Nath Roy and Prabhat Kumar Roy, Advocates. For opposite party no.1 : Mr. Amresh Kumar Verma, Advocate. ----------- 03/ 05.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite party no.1. This civil revision has been filed by the sole plaintiff- petitioner challenging order dated 06.11.2007 by which learned Subordinate Judge-I, Begusarai, rejected his application dated 07.09.2007 for marking the documents as exhibits mentioned in the said application filed in Title Suit No.288 of 2004. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for a decree of specific performance of contract and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was contested by the defendants, who filed their written statement and after completion of the pleadings, issues were framed in the suit much earlier, whereafter the hearing 2 of the suit started. It further transpires from the arguments of the parties and the materials on record, including the impugned order that in spite of repeated orders and sufficient opportunities the plaintiff did not produce evidence either oral or documentary and accordingly his evidence was closed. Thereafter the evidence of the defendants started and according to the learned court below it was almost complete when the aforesaid application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner. It is quite apparent that neither photocopies of the documents in question were filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint of title suit nor the original documentary evidence was produced by him before framing of the issues or even before starting of the evidence. Hence there has been violation of the specific provision of Order XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, at this stage the plaintiff-petitioner cannot be legally allowed to produce his documentary evidence and the learned court below had rightly found that the plaintiff was adopting merely a dilatory tactics. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )