IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1605 of 2009 Sheoddhari Kurmi son of late Ragi Lal Kurmi resident of Village Levari, Pragna Chaubar, P.S. Mairwa Dist. Siwan Defendant-Appellant- Petitioner Versus 1. Most. Manturna Kuar wife of late Bikarma Tiwari 2. Birendra Kumar Tiwari 3. Upendra Nath Tiwari 4. Raj Kishore Tiwari 5. Manoj Tiwari all sons of late Bikarma Tiwari resident of Village Levari, PO Levari, P.S. Mairwa Dist. Siwan 6. Tuntun 7. Lal Babu 8. Rapri all sons of Markanday Tiwari resident of Village Sirisian, P.S. Khampur Dist. Deoria At present resident of Village Levari, PO Levari, P.S. Mairwa Dist. Siwan 9. Sita Devi w/o Janardan Tiwari resident of Village Diyara, P.S. Assaon Dist. Siwan At present resident of Village Levari, PO Levari, P.S. Mairwa Dist. Siwan 10. Gautam Devi w/o Sachita Nand Tiwari resident of Village Tarwan, P.S.Darauli Dist. Siwan At present resident of Village Levari, PO Levari, P.S. Mairwa Dist. Siwan 11. Usha Devi w/o Rajendra Tiwari resident of Village Nadauli P.S. Lar Dist. Deoria (UP) At present resident of Village Levari, PO Levari, P.S. Mairwa Dist. Siwan 12. Ashok Kumari D/o late Bikram Tiwari resident of Village Levari, PO Levari, P.S. Mairwa Dist. Siwan 13. Rudal Bhagat 14 Indal Bhagat 15 Diurgawati 16 Hira Lal sons and daughter of late Parsu Ram Bhagat 17. Deo Nandon both sons of late Ramrup resident of Village Levari, PO Levari, P.S. Mairwa Dist. Siwan 18. Most Lilawati Devi w/o late Paramhans Prasad resident of Village Levari, PO Levari, P.S. Mairwa Dist. Siwan 19. Shyamli Devi w/o Dilip Majhi resident of Village Chakiya, P.S. and Dist. Deoria(UP) 20. Rina Kumari @ Satya Kumari d/o Paramhans Prasad resident of Village Levari, PO Levari, P.S. Mairwa Dist. Siwan 21. Sharmila Dvi w/o Satyadeo Rai resident of Bhaishi, PO Banka Dist.Deoria 22. Binu Kumari 23. Meha Kumari 24. Gudidi Kumari all daughters of Paramhans Prasad resident of Village Levari, PO Levari, P.S. Mairwa Dist. Siwan - 2 - ----------- For the petitioner: Mr Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate --------- 04/ 11.11.2009 This civil revision is being heard at this stage at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 18.08.2009 by which learned Additional District Judge-cum- Fast Track Court No. II, Siwan rejected his application to exhibit mortgage deed dated 12.04.1950 in Title Appeal No.34 of 1992. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.192 of 1978 which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents-opposite parties for declaration of their title and for other ancillary relief on the basis of registered sale deed dated 07.02.1977 executed by Janardan Kurmi and Kishun Kurmi in their favour. The said suit was contested by the defendant but finally it was decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge IV, Siwan vide his judgment and decree dated 30.07.1992. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the petitioner filed Title Appeal No.34 of 1992 which remained pending for 17 years and only during the course of arguments in title appeal the aforesaid application dated 30.07.2009 was filed by the petitioner for exhibiting the mortgage deed dated 12.04.1950 which was filed on 18.05.1990 but it could not be marked as exhibit and only back side of the said mortgage deed showing return of mortgage deed was exhibited as exhibits C and C1. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that the defendant–appellant-petitioner was fully aware of the - 3 - said document since much before but they did not take any step during the entire proceeding of title suit to exhibit the same although at his instance itself the back side of the said deed showing return of the mortgage deed was exhibited as exhibit C and C1. 6. It is also apparent that after the suit was decreed, title appeal was filed by the defendant-appellant-petitioner in the year 1992 but even thereafter no such application was filed by him and only when title appeal was heard and arguments were continuing on behalf of the petitioner that the said application was filed which shows that the defendant-appellant-petitioner had raised such objection only for delaying the proceeding of 17 years old title appeal, although there was no merit in the application filed by him. 7. 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. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)