IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2122 of 2008 BADARI RAI & ANR Versus SATYANARAYAN RAI ----------- 2. 19.12.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the court below has rightly rejected the prayer of the plaintiff petitioner for adducing certain documents into evidence at the stage of argument. As a matter of fact the evidence of the plaintiff petitioner had been closed way back, whereafter the defendant had also completed his evidence and the matter was continued for completion of argument. At that stage the plaintiff petitioner filed an application for amendment in the plaint which was rejected against which C.R.No. 1651/2007 was filed which also has been dismissed today by a separate order. After all this had happened the court below had insisted for completion of the argument, the application in question for adducing additional evidence was sought to be pressed on 17.7.2008 by taking a ground that these documents were on record from 6.5.2008. The 2 court below has considered this aspect of the matter and has found that such effort on the part of the petitioner was wholly malafide and aimed to delay the disposal of the suit. Counsel for the petitioner admits that these documents were neither produced by the plaintiff petitioner at the time of filing of the suit under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. or even at the time of framing of issue under Order 13 Rule 1 of the Code. If that was the necessity of the document the petitioner was required to be more cautious and to adduce them in evidence while he was examining his own witnesses or exhibiting his own documents. That having been not done this Court would not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for taking of additional evidence on record. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/