IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.555 of 2007 1. Doman Saw, son of late Dhannu Saw. 2. Mani Saw, son of Doman Saw, 3. Sunil Saw, son of Doman Saw 4. Anil Saw, son of Doman Saw. All are residents of village Lakshmipur, P.S. Surajgarha, District Lakhisarai.………. ……Defendants-Petitioners. Versus Manorma Devi, wife of late Jagdish Modi, resident of village Lakshmipur, P.S. Surajgarha, District Lakhisarai. …….Plaintiff-Opposite party For the petitioners : M/s Binod Kumar Singh and Parmanand Pd. Nr. Sahi, Advocates. For the opposite party : None. ----------- 06/ 14.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendants-petitioners challenging order dated 13.12.2006 by which learned Munsif, Lakhisarai rejected their application under the provision of Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for admitting a hukumnama as an exhibit in Title Suit No.39 of 1999. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the original plaintiff for declaration of his title and confirmation of his possession over the suit land as well as for other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit the defendants appeared and filed their written statements whereafter issues were framed and the evidence of the plaintiff was started and after its completion, was closed and the evidence of the defendants started. 2 4. It transpires that after several witnesses of the defendants were examined, the defendants filed a list of documents on 16.11.2005 and prayed for admitting the said documents in evidence, but the said prayer was refused by the learned court below on 29.11.2005, but the said order was not challenged by the defendants. 5. It further transpires that on 03.06.2006 the defendants again filed an application for recall of DW.6 for his re-examination for proving the hukumnama, which was produced on 16.11.2005. The said application was rejected by the learned court below on 27.06.2006, but the said order was never challenged by the defendants. 6. It also transpires that again on 05.07.2006 the defendants filed another application for exhibiting the documents produced by them including the said hukumnama, but the said application was also rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 10.10.2006 which was also never challenged by the defendants. 7. It was only thereafter that another application dated 06.12.2006 was filed by the defendants under the provision of Order VIII Rule 1A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for admitting the hukumnama filed on 16.11.2005 as an exhibit. This application has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 13.12.2006, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 8. From the impugned order itself, it is quite 3 apparent that the learned court below considered the matter in detail and found that in view of the earlier orders dated 29.11.2005, 27.06.2006 and 10.10.2006 which were never challenged and had attained finality, there was no occasion for the court to allow the same prayer of the defendants, which was also found to be frivolous on merits. 9. In the said 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.)