IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.12 of 2009 MD. NASIMUDDIN Versus MASOMAT JUMRATAN ----------- 2 15.01.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order allowing “Tyagpatranama” dated 28.12.1979 to be exhibited in evidence, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The impression sought to be created by the counsel for the petitioner that such order was in the teeth of the provisions made under Order XIII Rule 1(3) is somewhat misplaced and misconceived. It is so because the document in question was initially brought to the notice of the plaintiff in his cross-examination and even if the signature on such document was denied by the plaintiff, the court below has bound to exhibit it within the category of documents produced for the purposes of cross-examination of the witness of the other party strictly in terms of Order XIII Rule 1(3)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. If therefore such a document has been found to be permissible to be taken on record in terms of Order XIII Rule 1(3) (a), there would be no difficulty in taking the document on record and marking the same as an exhibit. - 2 - Faced with this situation Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that when the said document will be formally exhibited, the petitioner may be allowed to raise an objection with regard to its admission in evidence. The petitioner may approach the court below for this purpose but the court below will pass an order in keeping with the findings recorded in the impugned order and the observations made in this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is disposed of Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)