IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10728 of 2011 Ramesh Raut Versus Mohan Lal & Anr ---------------------------------- O R D E R 06. 20.12.2011 1. I have heard the learned counsel Mr. Aditya Narain Jha on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel Mr. Chandrakant on behalf of the respondents. 2. The plaintiff petitioner has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the order dated 8.6.2011 passed by Sub Judge-Ist, Bettiah West Champaran in Title Suit No. 101 of 1998 whereby the learned court below rejected the application of the plaintiff petitioner dated 26.5.2011 praying to exhibit the deed of khorisnama dated 29.8.1928. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a mention of khorisnama in the plaint granted by the plaintiff’s grand father in favour of Most. Fekiya as Sukhdev was a drunkard. Therefore, the learned court below should have exhibited the said document in exhibit but illegally rejected the application on the ground of delay only. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the application was filed by the petitioner when substantially the argument of the case had been closed and the suit was likely to be 2 posted for judgment and, therefore, the learned court below has rightly rejected the prayer. 5. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below found that the argument of both the parties had been closed and only reply was to be given by the plaintiff and at this stage the petitioner filed the application without explaining the delay as to why the said document was not produced earlier. 6. In the case of Dukhan Rai & Anr. vs. Mahendra Raj & Ors. 2007 (3) PLJR 8 this Court considered the deletion of Order 18 Rule 17(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the insertion of sub Rule 3 of Rule 1-A of Order 8 regarding the production of document by the defendant. This Court held at paragraph 9 that it is not the case of the defendants that the documents which were produced later on were not known to them earlier or were not produced inspite of due diligence. The court below has held that the defendants have not shown good cause for non- production of the documents earlier given in the second list of documents. The aforesaid conclusion does not suffer from any error and hence the order impugned is not fit to be interfered with before this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It appears that in that case the defendants sought permission to produce documents at a belated stage. Here in the present case 3 at our hand the plaintiff filed the document after conclusion of hearing. As stated above the learned court below found that there was no explanation at all as to why the said document was not produced earlier. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not knowing about the said documents or it was not in his possession. He simply filed the document and prayed for leave. As has been held by the decision of this Court no doubt the court has the jurisdiction and power to permit any party to produce document at the subsequent stage but the court must be satisfied that after exercise of due diligence the evidence could not be produced earlier. In the case of Sadhu Prajapat vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 2010 (2) PLJR 576 again at paragraph 8 this court has held as follows : “8. In my opinion, the courts, even before deletion of Order VIII, Rule 17-A, from the Code of Civil Procedure had inbuilt power to permit the aggrieved persons to produce evidence not previously known to them or which could not be produced despite due diligence. For allowing the documents at the later or advance stage of the suit, the court has to satisfy itself that after exercise of due diligence, evidence was either not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced despite due diligence. On being satisfied, those documents could be permitted as evidence even at a later state.” 4 7. For the sake of brevity it is reiterated here that in the present case no explanation at all has been given by the petitioner. Considering the facts the learned court below has therefore, rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner. In such circumstances, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the impugned order cannot be interfered with. 8. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)