IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.638 of 2008 LALLA RAI Versus RAJENDRA PANDIT & ORS ----------- 2 15.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff petitioner seems to be aggrieved by an order dated 17.3.2008 whereby and whereunder an application filed by the petitioner on 7.2.08 for taking to all the documents namely power of attorney of the year 1997 and an agreement of the defendant no.2 with the plaintiff of the year 2006 has been refused to be taken on record by admitting them into evidence and making them as exhibits. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the power of attorney executed by the plaintiff no.2 in favour of the plaintiff no.1 was essentially required to be brought on record and similarly there being an admission on behalf of the defendant no.2 admitting the claim of the plaintiff in the agreement of the year 2006, the Court below ought to have also allowed such documents to be taken into record by admitting them into evidence and making them as exhibits. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Court below after holding that the aforementioned documents having no relevance on the issues involved for 2 determination in the suit has correctly proceeded by refusing such prayer of the petitioner by also taking into consideration that the suit was of the year 1992 in which issues were framed on 20.12.1999 and the plaintiff kept on producing the evidence from 1.4.2000 i.e. for a period of eight years before coming out with the prayer for admitting the two new documents into evidence. The Court below thus has rightly rejected such prayer of petitioner in keeping with the spirit of Order XIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which lays down that all the documentary evidence must be placed on record by the parties at a time settlement and framing of the issues, the only exception being to the documents produced for the cross examination of the witnesses of the other party or to the documents handed over to a witness to refresh his memory. Admittedly the petitioners being the plaintiffs did not produce the copy of either of the two documents on or before 20.12.1999 when the issues were settled and framed by the court below and a subsequent discovery of the two documents after more than eight years of the commencement of hearing could not have been straightway taken into evidence by marking them exhibits only because the plaintiff petitioners have held the fort in course of adducing their evidence for last eight years. This Court has also taken into notice that the suit 3 is of the year 1992 and plaintiffs on being given the opportunity to adduce their evidence from April 2000 have produced 22 witnesses in a period of last eight years. If this be the pace of leading evidence by the plaintiff, the suit is not likely to be concluded in next five years. In such circumstances, this Court would direct the Court below to ensure that the suit of the year 1992 is expeditiously disposed of within a period of one and a half years from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This application thus being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with the aforementioned observations and directions. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)