IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11091 of 2006 1. Bhuvneshwar Yadav @ Bhuvneshwar Pd. Yadav, 2. Radhey Prasad Yadav Both sons of Rameshwar Yadav, Both resident of Village and P.S. Alauli, District Khagaria …..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. Lalo Yadav son of Sri Prayag Yadav, 3. Arun Yadav sonof Sri Prayag Yadav, 4. Prayag Yadav son of late Rameshwar Yadav, 5. Prahalad Yadav son of Prayag Yadav, All residents of village and P.S. Alauli, District Khagaria, … ……Respondents For the Petitioners: Mr. Radhey Shyam Prasad, Advocate For the State: GA 9 ----------- 2 28.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 25.04.2006 passed in T.S. No. 48/2000 by the Munsif, Khagaria, as contained in Annexure 1, whereby the trial court has accepted the certified copy of he judgment passed in Title Suit No. 22/2000 as exhibit. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that actually a deed of gift has been exhibited under the garb of the order. However, he could not point out any statement made in the writ application to the effect that in place of certified copy of the judgment of Title Suit No. 22/2000 a 2 deed of gift has been ordered to be admitted as exhibit vide order dated 25.04.2000. From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that the certified copy of the judgment has been accepted as exhibit in the interest of justice on the condition of payment of cost of Rs. 275/-. As a last resort, learned for the petitioner produced a copy of the rejoinder to the petition dated 19.04.2006 filed by the plaintiff in support of his submission. However, from the perusal of the rejoinder also, it appears that the plaintiff has made a prayer for accepting the certified copy of the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 22/2000 as exhibit. It has also been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the document should not have been admitted as evidence after framing of issues on 30.06.2005. However, on consideration of materials available on the record, I am of the view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As a result, this application is dismissed. SC (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)