IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.631 of 2007 1. Nuneshwar Tanti, S/o Samar Tanti 2. Rajo Tanti, S/o Late Kishun Tanti, All are residents of village Bhullo, Nawabganj, P.S. Sikandara, District Jamui…………. …….Defendants-Petitioners. Versus 1. Jagdish Ram, S/o Bhukan Ram 2. Nakat Ram, S/o Late Karu Ram, All are residents of village Bhullo, Nawabganj, P.S. Sikandara, District Jamui………. ……….Plaintiffs-Opposite party 1st set. 3. Rameshwar Tanti, S/o Samar Tanti, village Bhullo, Nawabganj, P.S. Sikandara, District Jamui.. ……..Defendant-Opposite party 2nd set. For the petitioners : Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate. For the opposite parties : Mr. Satya Ranjan Sinha, Advocate. ----------- 02/ 08.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This civil revision has been filed by the defendants- petitioners challenging order dated 13.01.2007 by which the learned Munsif-III, Jamui, allowed the application of the plaintiffs for taking into evidence as exhibits certain documents in Title Suit No.58 of 2002. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite party 1st set for declaration of title and for other ancillary reliefs. It transpires that the defendants appeared in the suit whereafter issues were framed. It is also stated that the evidence of the plaintiffs started and during its pendency, an application dated 13.12.2006 was filed by the plaintiffs for taking into evidence certain documents. The said application has been allowed by the learned 2 court below vide its order dated 13.01.2007, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. From the impugned order of the learned court below, it is quite apparent that the learned court below considered the entire matter in detail and only thereafter came to the definite conclusion that the documents in question were not available with the plaintiffs either at the time of filing of the suit or at the time of framing of the issues and hence they could not file the said documents earlier. Furthermore, the said documents, which were not earlier available with the plaintiffs, had been produced by the plaintiffs in the court before the conclusion of their evidence and before starting of the evidence of the defendants Furthermore, considering any financial loss to the defendants a cost had also been levied by the learned court below on the plaintiffs. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )