IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1993 of 2008 GANGA RAM MAHATO Versus VIJAY SHANKER SAHU & ORS ----------- 2 01.12.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the necessity for the plaintiff-petitioner to file the copy of the registered sale deed dated 30.01.1940 arose only when an incomplete copy of the same sale deed was sought to be pressed into action by the defendant No.5, opposite party. In this context, he has referred to an affidavit filed on 23.5.2008 (Annexure-1). If the Court below had taken on record the said incomplete document dated 30.1.1940 and that too in the month of May, 2008 as the behest of Defendant no. 5, the plaintiff-petitioner had every right to bring the whole document by way of rebuttal. Once that was only done by the plaintiff-petitioner by filing an application on 4.8.2008, the Court below ought to have considered this aspect in terms of Order XVIII Rule 2(3) C.P.C.. Accordingly, this Court on specific impression created by the counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that the aforementioned incomplete document (Incomplete 1940 sale deed) was taken on record at the behest of defendant only on 23.5.2008, would direct the Court below to - 2 - reconsider the whole matter afresh and if it is found that the aforesaid said document for the first time had seen the light of the day on 23.5.2008, the entire certified copy of the same document being sought to be brought on record by the petitioner should also be taken on record for adjudicating its true evidentiary value at the time of the disposal of the suit. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is disposed of. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)