IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1487 of 2006 MD.AFZAL HUSSAIN & ORS. Versus MD.TAUHID & ORS. With C.R. No.1280 of 2007 MD.AFZAL HUSSAIN & ORS. Versus MD.TAUHID & ORS. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rudra Deo Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Opposite Parties : M/s Anil Kumar Sinha & Mritunjay Kumar, Advocates 13 02.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. Since the impugned order in these two civil revision applications are similar in nature, the same have been taken up together for consideration and disposal and they are being disposed of by this common order. Civil Revision No.1487 of 2006 has been filed by the defendants-petitioners against the order dated 27.7.2006 passed by the Subordinate Judge VI, Gaya in Title Suit No.18 of 2001 by which the petition of the defendants filed under Order 8 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure for accepting certain documents on record and allowing the defendants to get them marked as exhibits and for taking them into evidence has been rejected. During course of hearing of these civil - 2 - revision applications, at the instance of the opposite parties, it transpired that the said petition filed by the defendant was, in fact, a second petition filed in the court below for the same very purpose. Their earlier petition had been dismissed by order dated 31.1.2006 against which the defendants-petitioners had not filed any civil revision application before this Court. In the circumstances, the defendants-petitioners filed Civil Revision No.1280 of 2007 challenging the said earlier order dated 31.1.2006 passed by the trial court rejecting the earlier petition of the defendants with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. Accordingly, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed for condonation of delay in filing Civil Revision No.1280 of 2007, for the reasons stated therein, is allowed and delay in filing the said revision application is condoned. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to the application filed by the defendants-petitioners for taking on record the documents in the suit which has been annexed as Annexure-5 along with application of Civil revision No.1487 of 2006. The said - 3 - application contains a list of documents from which it appears that except document no.2, rest are public documents. In the petition, the defendants have given some explanation with regard to the dates and production of those documents claiming that they were transferees of the lands from the original land-holders who are also defendants. Since the original land-holders were not taking interest in the suit, to protect their own interest, the defendants-petitioners searched for the documents and thereafter they found the documents which were relevant for consideration of their case by the trial court. From the order of the learned trial court dated 31.1.2006 it appears that the learned trial court has rejected the application on the ground that the evidence of the plaintiffs has closed and the defendants have also examined 13 witnesses. However, it is admitted at Bar that the evidence of the defendants has not been closed. Therefore, without setting aside the orders passed by the learned court below, these civil revision applications are disposed of with direction to the learned court below to consider at the time of argument in the suit – as to whether the public documents mentioned in the - 4 - said petition are required to be looked into by it for the ends of justice and for just decision of the case. In case the trial court finds that for adjudication of the issues, the public documents are required to be looked into, it shall be at liberty to do so in accordance with law, subject to any objection by the plaintiffs with regard to their relevancy and genuineness. So far as document at serial no.2 is concerned, if the evidence of the defendants has not closed, the defendants may be permitted to get the said document brought on record by getting it exhibited through any witness which shall also be subject to challenge by the plaintiffs with regard to its genuineness and relevancy. With the above observations and directions, both these civil revision applications are disposed of. B.T. (J.N. Singh, J.)