IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.109 of 2008 ---- Ganaur Singh @ Gonour Singh, son of Late Mahindra Mahto, Resident of Village-Panapur, P.O. Panapur, P.S. Karja, District- Muzaffarpur. -- Plaintiff-petitioner. Versus 1. Smt. Pyari Devi D/o Late Khakhan Mahto, W/o Basdeo Singh. 2. Smt. Samundari Devi, D/o Late Khakhan Mahto, W/o Suraj Singh. 3. Kiran Kumari 4. Niraj Kumari Both D/o Late Kishuni Singh, minor under guardianship of Pyari Devi (mother). 5. Sukhari Singh S/o Late Kishuni Singh, minor under guardianship of Pyari Devi (mother). All are resident of Village-Panapur, P.O. Panapur, P.S. Karja, District-Muzaffarpur. -- Defendants-Opposite parties 1st Set. 6. Ram Bichari Devi W/o Late Siya Ram Singh. Resident of Village-Chhajan Harishankar, P.O. Chhajan, P.S.- Kudhni, District-Muzaffarpur. 7. Om Prakash Singh 8. Vinay Kumar Singh 9. Mukesh Singh 10. Ranjan Singh. All are sons of Late Siya Ram Singh, resident of Village- Chhajan Harishankar, P.O.- Chhajan, P.S.- Kudhni, District-Muzaffarpur. -- Defendant-Opposite Party 2nd Set. ------ For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Karn with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocates. Fr the opposite parties : None. ---- 02. 05.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the sole plaintiff-petitioner challenging order dated 12.11.2007 by which the learned Subordinate Judge IV, Muzaffarpur rejected his application for exhibiting documents filed by him in Title Suit No.09 of 2001. - 2 - 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for partition of the suit land and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was contested by the defendants, whereafter issues were framed and evidences were led and the evidence of both the parties have been completed and have now been closed. 4. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the impugned order of the learned court below, but it is quite apparent from the facts and circumstances of this case that the plaintiff’s evidence had been closed as far as back on 18.02.2004, whereafter defendants witnesses were examined and only after four years of closing of their evidence, the plaintiff filed an application for allowing him to produce more exhibits without disclosing any reason for such a long delay. The learned court below has also found that a similar application was filed by the plaintiff on 04.03.2006 which was dismissed on 22.06.2007, hence the learned court below had no option but to reject the said application of the plaintiff-petitioner. 5. 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. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)