IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.615 of 2009 1. DASRATH PASWAN, Son of late Saryug Paswan resident of village-paharpur, P.S.Medanichauki(Surjgarha), District- Lakhisarai. Versus 1.JARMAN SINGH 2. Japan Singh 3. American Singh, All sons of late Rameshwar Singh, resident of village-Paharpur, P.S. Medanichauki (Surajgarha) District- Lakhisarai. ----------- 2 20.4.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision application has been filed by the plaintiff- respondent against the order dated 14.1.2009 passed by ADJ cum Fast Track Court No.4, Lakhisarai in title appeal No.31 of 2007 by which the learned Court below has allowed the two applications of the defendants-appellants under Order 41 Rule- 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is nothing to show that the defendant-appellant, in spite of exercise of due diligence, could not get hold of those documents before. He further submits that the court below has not recorded any reason for allowing the such applications of the defendant-appellant. From the order impugned, it appears that the first application was filed for admission of the certified copy of sale deed in evidence. The learned court below found that the same was already on record before the trial court and it was a public document and by mistake the same was not marked as - 2 - exhibit. Therefore this application was allowed by the learned court below for the said reasons. The other petition filed by the defendant-appellant was for admission of some Zamindari receipts as evidence which the court below has found as of more than 30 years old and has found them to be supported by entries made in the certified register ‘D’ available on record which he has held to be a public document. He has found that those documents were also related to the land in dispute. From bare reading of the impugned order it is apparent that the learned court below has accepted the explanation of the appellant-respondent that Zamindari receipts were found by the defendant/appellant at the time of cleaning of the house on the occasion of Diwali. Thus, from the reading of the order of the learned court below it appears that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct. The respondent/petitioner, in any case, will be at liberty to dispute the genuineness or legality of the documents at the time of hearing of the appeal in accordance with law. In the circumstances, this court does not find any error in the order impugned of the learned court below and hence does not find any merit in the revision application and the same is dismissed. (J. N. Singh, J.) Ravi/-