IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1894 of 2006 JAMUN MAHTO & ANR Versus BHUNESHWAR MAHTO @ BHATO MAHTO ----------- 3 11.07.2008 Heard counsel for the defendant petitioner. This Court would not find any reason to interfere with the reasoning recorded in the impugned order of the Court below rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for exhibiting two documents dated 8.6.1931 and 10.10.1949 inasmuch as the Court below has rightly held that if these documents were already on record in 1991 they ought to have also been brought in evidence when the defendant petitioners i.e. defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were being examined. The approach of the Court below in rejecting such prayer on the ground that evidence of defendants had already been closed and such a prayer of the petitioner was made at the belated stage of arguments cannot be held to be jurisdictional error much less perverse or illegal so as to interfered by this court in its revisional power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. - 2 - In that view of the matter this revision application is wholly misconceived. At this stage counsel for the petitioner seeks only this much of liberty that if required the petitioners may be allowed to produce these documents by way of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule-27 at the appellate stage. This Court without expressing any opinion on merit of such prayer of the petitioner may only observe that it will always be open for the appellate Court to consider the such prayer of the petitioners in accordance with law. In view of the fact that this Court has noticed that the suit in question was instituted in the year, 1985 it will direct the Court below to conclude the arguments and deliver the judgment within a period of six months from the date of receipt and/or production of this order. With the aforesaid observations/directions this application is dismissed. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) - 3 -