IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11668 of 2011 Motilal Mehta Versus Siyaram Mehta & Ors ---------------------------------- 7. 20.12.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff petitioner has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 21.1.2011 passed by Sub Judge–I, Supaul in Title Suit No. 115 of 2004 whereby the learned court below rejected the application of the petitioner for permitting to adduce documentary evidence i.e. exchange deed dated 3.3.1962. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the document is necessary for just decision of the case but the learned court below has rejected the prayer. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that earlier after closer of evidence of both the parties the learned court below heard the parties and fixed the case for judgment in the year 2007 and at this stage amendment application was filed by the plaintiff which was allowed and thereafter again the learned court below after hearing the parties fixed the case for judgment and at this stage the present application has been filed. Considering these facts the learned court below has rejected the prayer. 2 From perusal of the application filed by the petitioner which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to this application it appears that a formal application has been filed. There is no explanation at all as to why at such a belated stage the document was sought to be produced by the petitioner. In the case of Mohd. Shoib Alam vs. Mohd. Salahuddin 2009 (4) PLJR 866 this Court relying upon the earlier decision in 2007 (3) PLJR 8 has held that even after deletion of Rule 17-A court has inherent power to permit the parties to produce evidence not known to them earlier or which could not be produced inspite of due diligence. In that case also it appears that no explanation was given and, therefore, this High Court held that petitioners could not show that despite due diligence they could not produce the document earlier and, therefore, the civil revision application was dismissed. In the present case, it appears that no explanation at all has been given by the petitioner as to whether this document was within his knowledge or not and as to why he did not produce the document at earlier stage. In 2010 (2) PLJR 576 Sadhu Prajapat vs. State of Bihar and others this Court again reiterating the said view quoted above. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below has considered 3 the fact that this application has been filed when the case was fixed for judgment and no explanation at all has been given by the petitioner and, therefore, rejected the prayer. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by this Court, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)