IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.849 of 2008 DAYANAND MAHTO Versus SUNAINA DEVI & ORS ----------- 3 7/7/2008 Heard counsel for the defendant petitioner. The petitioner is a tenant in suit for eviction under B.B.C. Act is aggrieved by the order dated 21.2.2008 rejecting his prayer to exhibit certain document. The court below while passing the impugned order has recorded that:- (i) the suit being one of eviction those document which were sought to be exhibited by the petitioner, were not relevant. (ii) the suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner had already been dismissed and therefore his claim of being owner of the suit property having totally vanished his case had to be gone into in the context of the prayer for eviction made by the plaintiff- opposite party. (iii) the similar prayer of the petitioner came to be rejected in the earlier orders dated 2.11.2006 and 25.6.2007 (iv) there was no reason for the court below to review the said order as was sought to be done by the 2 petitioner by filing application which came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 21.2.2008. Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to assail any of the aforesaid findings nor has it been suggested that the aforesaid findings recorded by the court below suffers from any apparent error on face of record. In the opinion of this Court, once the aforementioned findings of the court below is admitted, approach of the court below in rejecting the application of the petitioner cannot be said to be unjustified. There being thus no jurisdictional error in the impugned order, this Civil Revision application must be and is hereby dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar