IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.272 of 2007 Kamendra Kumar Singh, son of Late Ambika Singh, Resident of Mohalla-Lohanipur, Kadam Kuan, Police Station-Kadam Kuan, District-Patna. …Petitioner/Defendant. Versus Ram Sharan Singh, son of Late Gayani Singh, resident Of Mohalla-Lohanipur, Police Station-Kadamkuan, District-Patna. …Opposite Party/Plaintiff. ----------- For the petitioner :- Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal. Advocate. For the O.P. :- Mr. Jashawir Singh Arora,Advocate. Mr. Ajay Kumar “Ajay”, Advocate. Mr. Ravi Bhatia, Advocate. 2. 10. 07. 2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the O.P. 2. This Civil Revision has been filed by the sole defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 7. 11. 2006 passed in Title Suit No. 495/1991 by which the learned Sub Judge III, Patna, rejected his application dated 14. 9. 2006 for directing the Patna Municipal Corporation to comply the earlier order dated 9. 8. 2005 and to produce the application filed in the Corporation on 8. 12. 1983 said to be under the signature of Plaintiff-O.P. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the Plaintiff- O.P. for declaration that the deed of gift in question was illegal, fraudulent etc. and for other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit the defendant appeared and filed his pleading, whereafter issues were framed and evidence started. 4. However, while even the evidence of 2 defendant was at its concluding stage, he filed a petition on 14. 09. 2006 for directing the Patna Municipal Corporation to produce the original petition dated 8. 12. 1983 which was filed in its office by the plaintiff as directed earlier by order dated 9. 8. 2005. This application has been rejected by the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 7. 11. 2006. 5. From the averments of the parties and materials available on record, it is quite apparent that the defendant had claimed that a petition was filed by the Plaintiff- .O.P in the office of the Patna Municipal Corporation on 8. 12. 1983 which supported the claim of the defendant. But the plaintiff had denied the claim of filing any such petition before the Patna Municipal Corporation. However, when earlier the defendant raised that issue, the learned court below passed an order dated 9. 8. 2005 directing the Patna Municipal Corporation to produce the said application filed in its office under the signature of the Plaintiff-O.P. Thereafter, the Patna Municipal Corporation did not send the alleged original petition on the ground that it was not found and was being searched. In the said circumstances, the defendant himself filed a certified copy of the said petition dated 8. 12. 1983 allegedly filed by the Plaintiff-O.P. in the office of the Patna Municipal Corporation and got it proved as Exhibit- D by its witnesses. 6. In the said circumstance, it is quite obvious 3 that there was no occasion for the defendant to again rake up the said issue and file an application on 14. 9. 2006 for compliance of the earlier order dated 9. 8. 2005, as the said matter was closed. The suit is already eighteen years old and the said move of the defendant appears merely to further delay the disposal of the suit. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Accordingly, this Civil Revision is dismissed with a direction to the learned court below to expedite the hearing of the suit without any further delay. SKBOSE ( S. N. Hussain)