IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1828 of 2006 GOPAL CHOUDHARY Versus BANWARI CHAUDHARY & ORS ----------- 2. 09.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner This civil revision application has been filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 31.8.2006 passed by the Subordinate Jude, III, Siwan in Title Suit No.301/98 by which the learned court below has rejected the application of the petitioner to mark certain documents purported to be more than 30 years old, as exhibit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the documents are more than 30 years old, the court below may consider the same in terms of Section 90 of the Evidence Act. Section 90 of the Evidence Act only raises a presumption of genuineness of the documents produced by the parties in the suit. From the impugned order it appears that the documents have been filed by the plaintiff in the suit before start of evidence of his behalf but he did not get the same proved and exhibited by his witnesses. After close of the evidence and after commencement of the - 2 - arguments by the defendants, this petition has been filed by the plaintiff. Apparently, laches and delay is on the part of the plaintiff, therefore, no specific direction can be issued to the court below to get the documents proved and exhibited at the fag end of the trial. However, the trial court will be at liberty to consider the documents, if permissible in law, in case, during the hearing of the suit, it finds that the same are necessary for just decision of the case. With the above observation, this civil revision application is disposed of. B.T. ( J.N. Singh, )