IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10567 of 2011 Md.Nayeem Versus Arun Kumar Prasad @ Bablu ----------- 3. 15.07.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 24.5.2011/ 25.5.2011 as contained in Annexure 4 passed by Munsif – III, Patna in Eviction Suit No. 18 of 2010 whereby the learned court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner to direct the plaintiff respondent to file the earlier registered lease deeds. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact there were seven lease deeds prior to the present lease deed and always the lease deeds were extended from time to time. There was renewal clause in the lease deed. The learned counsel further submitted that admittedly the said lease deeds are in custody of the plaintiff and therefore, it is necessary that the said lease deeds should be directed to be filed by the 2 plaintiff but the learned court below by the impugned order rejected the prayer. From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that the plaintiff stated that all the lease deeds were in custody of the plaintiff No.1 and after the death of plaintiff No.1 the said lease deeds are traceless. The learned court below further observed that the lease deeds are registered deeds and therefore, the defendant is at liberty to produce the certified copy of the lease deeds. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, neither it is a case of grave injustice nor failure of justice. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in the writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)