IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.545 of 2009 SANJIV KUMAR CHOUDHARY @ RAJU CHOUDHARY Versus SRI KAMESHWAR CHAUDHARY & ORS ----------- 3 10.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision application has been filed by the plaintiff petitioner against the order dated 11.2.2009 passed by the Munsif, Banka in Title Suit No. 17 of 1987 by which the learned Munsif has rejected the petition of the petitioner for taking into evidence certain documents and marking as exhibits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the controversy between the parties the documents are very important as they are more than thirty years old and they establish the dealing of the property by both the parties jointly which negatives the case of the defendant of having exclusively got the property in his share. He further submits that there are some order-sheets of different courts which also show the same. Learned court below has rejected the petition on the ground that the suit is very old and arguments have started and evidence of - 2 - both the parties has been closed and arguments have started. The learned court below has also found that no satisfactory evidence has been given by the petitioner for producing those documents so late in the suit. This court does not find any error in exercise of jurisdiction of the learned trial court in rejecting the petition of the petitioner and therefore does not find any merit in this revision application and the revision application is dismissed. However, if by not taking those documents any prejudice is caused to this petitioner he may raise this issue before the appellate court at appropriate stage in accordance with law, if necessary. Kundan (J. N. Singh, J.)