IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.204 of 2008 ----- Dr. B.K. Shukla @ Braj Kishore Shukla, son of Late Bhola Nath Shukla, Resident of Hariji Ke Hata, Arrah, P.O.-Arrah, P.S. Arrah Nawadah, District-Bhojpur: Clinic in Tenant Premises Bandan Tola, P.S.-Arrah, Nawadah, District-Bhojpur. -- Defendant-petitioner. Versus Shashi Nath Ojha son of Late Raghubir Narain Ojha, Resident of Mohalla-Bandhan Tola, P.S. Arrah Nawadah, District- Bhojpur. -- Plaintiff-Opposite Party. ---- For the petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Narain with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Ojha, Advocates. For the opposite party : Mr. Anish Chandra Sinha, Advocate. ---- 05. 08.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the sole petitioner and learned counsel for the sole opposite party. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 05.1.2008 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Bhojpur rejected his application dated 15.12.2007 in Eviction Suit No.01 of 2004. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the defendant-petitioner from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiff. In the said suit the defendant appeared and contested. 4. It transpires that on 19.08.2006 the plaintiff filed list of document along with a plain diary and the defendant filed his list of document on 07.09.2006, whereafter issues were also framed by the - 2 - court on 21.09.2006 at the instance of the parties. 5. After the framing of the issues evidence of the plaintiff started from 20.10.2006 and during the course of evidence the defendant filed an application dated 15.12.2007 (Annexure-1) praying that the plain diary be not taken into account as an exhibit. On the same day, a rejoinder was filed on behalf of the plaintiff and the learned court below dismissed the said application of the defendant vide its order dated 05.01.2008 against which the instant civil revision has been filed. 6. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the said order of the learned court below but the admitted fact is that the plaintiff filed his list of documents along with plain diary on 19.08.2006, whereafter the defendant filed his list of documents on 07.09.2006 and issues were framed on 21.09.2006 and deposition of plaintiff’s witnesses started on 20.10.2006, but in the meantime no such objection was raised by the defendant and he filed the aforesaid application much belatedly on 15.12.2007 when the hearing of the suit has proceeded much further. 7. Since the plain diary was filed along with the list of documents, the learned court below was quite justified in taking it into account on the basis of deposition of plaintiff’s witnesses. So far the provision of Order VII Rule 14 and Order XIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are concerned, no doubt, the plaintiff had to file a copy of the document to be relied upon by him at the time of filing of the plaint, but he had entered the said document in the list produced by him and, in fact, filed the said document along with list of document. Hence, - 3 - reading the provision of Rule 14(1) with Rule 14(3) of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as the said document produced by the plaintiff was a diary in which the payment of rent was alleged to have been incorporated, the learned court below was quite justified in taking the said document in account as admittedly the said document was produced before the settlement of issues as provided under Order XIII Rule 1 of the Code. 8. Furthermore, if the defendant had any objection he should have raised it immediately after the filing of the document concerned along with list of document, but he waited for about sixteen months to raise the objection when the deposition of plaintiff’s witnesses had started fourteen months back. Hence, it is quite apparent that the defendant-petitioner is merely trying to delay the disposal of the suit which cannot be legally allowed as the ground for eviction includes personal requirement of the plaintiff. 9. 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 with a direction to the learned court below to expedite the disposal of the eviction suit. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)