IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1752 of 2006 SUDHU PRAJAPAT, SON OF LATE NATHUN PARAJAPAT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-NIMA, TOLA DINDYAL NAGAR, P.S. – MAGADH MEDICAL COLLEGE, GAYA, DISTT. GAYA. -----PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, GAYA. 2. THE COLLECTOR, GAYA. 3. CHAUTH RAM RAITANI, SON OF LATE RAGHUMAL TAITANI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – A.P. COLONY, QUARTER NO. 358, NEAR ASHA SINGH MORE, P.S. RAMPUR, P.O. GAYA, DISTT. GAYA. 4. SUKHAN YADAV, SON OF LATE KARU YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – DAULATPUR, P.S. TEKARI, DISTT. GAYA. 5. JAGIA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE DUKHAN YADAV 5a AMARIK YADAV @ AMRIT YADAV 5b GANESH YADAV 5c LAKHAN YADAV NOS. 5a TO 5c ARE SONS OF LATE DUKHAN YADAV, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE – KRICH NAWADA, P.S. – TEKARI, DISTT. GAYA. 5d REKHA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE DUKHAN YADAV AND WIFE OF SHEO BARAT YADAV, RESIDENT OF KATHUTIA, P.S. MAGADH MEDICAL COLLEGE, P.O. PERSAMA, DISTT. GAYA. 6. JAGIA DEVI WIFE OF LATE KULDIP YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DAULATPUR, P.S. AND P.O. TEKARI, DISTT. GAYA. 7. NANDAN MISTRI, SON OF KALI MISTRI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NIMA, P.S. CHANDAUTI, DISTT. GAYA AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – KHAS KUAN, NEAR JAI RAMPUR MORE, P.O. – JHAMIA, DISTT. DHANBAD. -----PRINCIPAL DEFENDANTS…OPPOSITE PARTY-1 8. THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT BHOODAN TAGYA COMMITTEE, BUNIADANJ, MANPUR, DISTT. GAYA. -------PERFORMA DEFENDANT…OPPOSITE PARTY-2 9. SARJU PRASAD SON OF LATE VIDYA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – DINDAYAL NAGAR, P.S. MAGADH MEDICAL COLLEGE, DISTT. GAYA. ----- DEFENDANT 2ND SET….OPPOSITE PARTY NO.3 ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha, Adv. For the Opposite Parties No. 2 to 9 : Mr. Gajanan Arun, Advocate Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Adv. For Opposite Party : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Adv. No. 7 Mr. Navin Kumar Sinha, Adv. ----------- 9. 10/7/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned 2 counsel for the Opposite Parties No. 2 and 9 as well as 7. Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. Earlier, notices were issued to the opposite parties to show cause as to why this application be not allowed and disposed of at the stage of admission itself. In response to such notice, some opposite parties have appeared whereas despite valid service of notice, some of them have not appeared. Thus, I proceed to dispose of this application. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.8.2006 passed by the Munsif, IInd, Gaya, in Title Suit No. 228 of 1989. Plaintiff-petitioner had brought the aforementioned title suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession. A petition was filed by him on 21.7.2006 wherein a prayer was made for grant of leave of the court for allowing certain documents to be brought on record including some orders passed by the Revenue Authorities during pendency of the suit. The court below on consideration of rival submissions has rejected the prayer on two grounds. Firstly, that leave cannot be granted under Order VII, Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure as it could only be granted for those documents which were left to be brought on record at the time of filing of the plaint. Secondly, that since the documents are of the period of pendency of the suit, thus, in regard to them, aforesaid leave cannot be granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents concerned are the certified copies of the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities and, as such, these documents are 3 public documents and the same have to be brought on record for just and fair disposal of the case. Thus, according to him, the court below ought to have allowed the aforesaid prayer. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties contended that the documents are forged and bogus as they have been created during pendency of the suit and, as such, they cannot be permitted to be brought on record as a piece of evidence inasmuch as there is no whisper about them either in the pleadings or in the evidence recorded by the court. In my opinion, the courts, even before deletion of Order VIII, Rule 17-A, from the Code of Civil Procedure had in built power to permit the aggrieved persons to produce evidence not previously known to them or which could not be produced despite due diligence. For allowing the documents at the later or advance stage of the suit, the court has to satisfy itself that after exercise of due diligence, evidence was either not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced despite due diligence. On being satisfied, those documents could be permitted as evidence even at a later stage. In the present case, the certified copies of the order of the Revenue Authorities pertain to the year 1993 as has been jointly submitted by the parties. The suit is of the year 1989. The plaintiff was at liberty to immediately file it or he could have prayed for leave for allowing these documents to be brought on record after getting the certified copies thereof, but the same was not done by him. It has been stated that the documents were lying with 4 certain other papers in a plastic bag and could not get attention of the plaintiff. This excuse itself sufficiently discloses the lack of seriousness of the plaintiff as well as desirability of the demand in question for the purpose of bringing the demands in question on record. In my opinion, the plaintiff-petitioner could not show that despite of due diligence, those documents could not be produced by him at an early stage. In view of the aforesaid despite disagreeing with certain findings of the trial court with regard to maintainability of such petition at a later stage, I am constrained to hold that even if the court below had power to admit the documents, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the prayer of plaintiff-petitioner was not fit to be allowed. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no reason warranting interference of this Court in its discretionary revisional jurisdiction. As a result, this Civil Revision application is dismissed. S. Ali (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)