1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.130 of 2007 1. Arun Kumar @ Arun Mahto, son of Maheshwar Mahto 2. Arbind Kumar @ Arbind Mahto, son of Maheshwar Mahto 3. Maheshwar Mahto, son of late Raudi Mahto All resident of village Lakhisarai English, P.O. +P.S. and District Lakhisarai. …..Defendants-Petitioners. -versus- 1. Ramanand Prasad, son of late Ramnarayan Mahto 2. Ranjan Kumar 3. Navin Kumar 4. Amit Bhaskar Nos. 3 to 4 sons of Ramanand Prasad All resident of village Lakhaisarai English, P.O. + P.S. and District Lakhisarai. …Plaintiffs-Opposite Parties. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Narayan Singh, Sr. Advocate. For the Opp. Parties: Mr. Khatim Reza, Advocate. --------- 03/ 03.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant-petitioners challenging order dated 18.10.2006, by which the learned Munsif, Lakhisarai, rejected their prayer for taking into evidence as an exhibit the original sale-deed dated 15.01.1940 in Title Suit No.92 of 1992, which was filed by the opposite parties for declaration of their title and recovery of possession as well as for other ancillary reliefs. 3. From the arguments of the parties as well as materials on record including the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed much earlier and the defendants took more than six years in leading their evidence, whereafter, the evidence of both the parties were closed in the year 2006 and the suit was fixed for arguments and 2 only thereafter an application was filed by the defendants- petitioners in the learned court below on 19.09.2006 praying to take into evidence the aforesaid sale-deed of 1940 and mark the same as an exhibit. This prayer has been rejected by the learned court below vide the impugned order. 4. The learned court below has considered the entire matter in detail and has come to the specific conclusion that there is no pleading of the defendants with respect to the aforesaid sale-deed nor their claim in the written statement is based upon it and hence there was no occasion for the court to take the same into evidence that too at such a belated stage. It was also found that the defendants have been delaying the disposal of the suit after taking much time in producing the witnesses and even after closure of the evidence of both the parties and start of the arguments, the said application was filed with a view to further delay the disposal of the suit and by that time, the suit had already become 14 years old.. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error in the same. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )