IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2383 of 2005 TETRI DEVI D/o Biranchi Barai (deceased) and W/o Basudeo Bhagat (deceased), resident of village Dhabouli, P.O. + P.S. Ballia, District Begusarai, presently residing at Mokama, P.O. + P.S. Mokama, District Patna… …Defendant/Petitioner Versus 1. SITA RAM BHAGAT , S/o Late Basudeo Bhagat, 2. Arjun Bhagat 3. Bhim Bhagat 4. Madan Bhagat 5. Balmiki Bhagat 6. Dani Bhagat 7. Bhisan Bhagat All sons of Sita Ram Bhagat 8. Mohini Devi, widow of Late Pathel Bhagat 9. Bhola Bhagat 10. Rajo Bhagat Both sons of Pathel Bhagat All residents of village Mathair, P.S. Motihari, District Begusarai 11A. Pinku Kr. Singh 11B. Tinku Kr. Singh Both sons of late Ram Bilas Singh 11C. Rubi Kumari Daughter of late Ram Bilas Singh 12A. Rajendra Singh 12B. Upendra Singh 12C. Tuntun Singh 12D. Nunubaboo Singh all sons of late Kishun Singh 12E. Ugni Devi, daughter of late Kishun Singh 12F. Janki Devi, daughter of late Kishun Singh 13A. Shashi Bhusan Singh 13B. Neeraj Kr. Singh both sons of late Janardan Singh 13C. Savitri Kumari 13D. Nand Kumari 13E. Asha Kumari, all daughter of late Janardan Singh 14. Ram Badan Singh, Son of Shiv Balak Singh 15. Sundari Devi, wife of Siya Ram Singh 2 16.Madan Singh, Son of Siya Ram Singh 17Smt. Gaytri Devi, W/o Krishnandan Singh 18.Smt. Pautri Devi 19.Smt. Nand Kumari Devi Both daughters of Siyaram Singh 20.Smt. Asha Devi All 11 to 20 are residents of village Bhairwan, P.S and District Begusarai 21Nathuni Bhagat, Son of Biranchi Barai 22.Chandra Kala Devi, D/o Biranchi Barai Both 21 and 22 are R/o village Dhabouli, P.S. Ballia, District Begusarai 23.Mahendra Bhagat 24.Ramashish Bhagat 25.Ram Pravesh Bhagat All are sons of Jitan Bhagat 26.Sumitra Devi, D/o Shankar Barai 27.Naresh Barai, Son of Shankar Barai 28.Chando Bhagat, Son of Khukhner Bhagat 29.Chandra Shekhar Bhagat, Son of Khukhner Bhagat 30.Shiv Shankar Bhagat 31.Wakil Bhagat Both sons of Mishri Bhagat 32.Chano Bhagat 33.Chansi Bhagat Both sons of Khakhar Bhagat All 21 to 33 are residents of villae Maniappa, P.S. Motihari, District Begusarai 34.Daulti Devi 35.Dulari Devi All are daughters Jai Ram Bhagat 36A. Mahednra Mahto 36B.Kailash Mahto 36C.Ananat Kumar all are sons of Ajhuli Devi 36D. Rita kumari, daughter of Ajhuli Devi all 34 to 36 are residents of village Ratanpu, P.S. Surajgarha, District Lakhisarai… Defendants 2nd Party/Opposite Parties For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajani Kant Jha, Advocate. ----------- 30 18.11.2009 A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of 3 the petitioner. Let it be kept on the record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The defendant-petitioner is aggrieved by that part of the order dated 29.09.2005 passed by the Sub Judge III, Begusarai in T.S. No. 196/94, whereby the petitioner’s prayer for granting leave for filing documents has been refused. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the documents were along with defendant no. 15 who had gone to earn his livelihood outside, and, thus, the same could not be filed earlier. In that view of the matter, the court below ought to have allowed the petitioner to file the concerned documents. The trial court has held that the stage of filing of documents had already passed and issues have already been framed in the suit in 2001 itself. Thus, at this stage, no document could be allowed to be filed specially in view of the fact that the suit is of the year 1994. I am not in conformity with the views expressed by the court below that the same is devoid of any power to accept the documents at belated stage. The provisions as contained in Order VIII Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure speaks of the duty of the defendant to produce the documents at the time of filing of the written 4 statement. However, the powers of the court have not been curtailed to grant leave for receiving the documentary evidence even at later stage, if it is required in the interest of justice. However, the petition, which has been filed by the defendant- petitioner before the court below, which has been brought on record before this Court as annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit, does not disclose any cogent reason for granting such leave for filing documents at the belated stage. Only a bald statement has been made that the documents had been along with the defendant no. 15, who had gone outside for earning his livelihood. The requirement of law is that if the documents are not with the defendant, then he at the appropriate time should have stated as to in whose possession or power it was lying. But the petitioner had never disclosed this fact on any earlier occasion, rather the same has been stated at belated stage. The suit is of the year 1994, which requires expeditious disposal. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground warranting interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. This civil revision is, accordingly, dismissed. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)