IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12776 of 2011 Ravindra Thakur Versus Rakesh Thakur & Ors ---------------------------------- 10. 21.11.2011 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Parthsarthi on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel, Mr. Udayan Choudhary on behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 4. In spite of service of notice on the respondent no.1 who has filed vakalatnama also, nobody appeared. The plaintiff-petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.01.2009 passed by Munsif, Barh in Title Suit No.50 of 1992 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application dated 16.10.2008 filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent nos.2 to 3 for producing the original copy of the legal notice served by the mother of respondent no.1 who was original defendant no.1 in the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the application of the plaintiff earlier the Court below by terms of order dated 17.03.1993 called for the original of the legal notice from the respondent nos.2 to 3. In spite of sending the original legal notice, the respondent nos.2 to 3 sent the certified copy of the same. Therefore, the petitioner filed the application praying for calling the original but the learned Court below has rejected the same. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2 respondent nos.2 to 3 submitted that since the certified photocopies of the legal notice was sent along with covering letter as contained in Annexure-3, the original must be in the office of the respondents and, therefore, according to the learned counsel, if it is at all available, the same shall be produced before the Court on or before 15th of December, 2011 which is the next date fixed in the Court below in the suit. If it is not available or not traceable within this period, the respondent shall file an affidavit to that effect in the Court below within the said period. Since the Court below has earlier directed to produce original, the learned Court below could not have rejected the prayer subsequently. In my opinion, therefore, the learned Court below has not exercised a jurisdiction vested in it by law. In the result, this application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and it is directed that if the original is produced as assured by the respondents before this Court, the same shall be received in evidence. If it is not produced on the ground that either it is not traceable or it has been lost, the certified copy may be marked. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)