IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.657 of 2008 RAVINATH SINGH & ANR Versus RAM PRASAD SINGH ----------- 3 15/1/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners. While this Court would not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order specially when counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to demonstrate that any part of the order suffers from an error on record. The facts being thus admitted, this was definitely not the case where the court below should have allowed indulgence to the petitioners for leading evidence after closure of the evidence way back in the year, 2001. In fact the court below was quite liberal in allowing the part prayer of the petitioner whereby and whereunder some of the public documents have been sought to be taken on records by way of evidence. The grievance of the petitioner that since the court below has, in the impugned order has not clarified as to which of them are public documents, could create confusion in future is wholly misconceived, in as much as, the court below was definitely aware regarding 2 documents which had fulfilled the test of public document. However, the petitioner may approach the court below only to this extent to get the order clarified as with regard to the public document which has been taken on records by way of evidence. With the aforementioned observation this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar