IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1428 of 2006 1. SHYAM PRASAD SAO 2. RAMA NAND SAO, BOTH SONS OF LATE SUCHIT SAO, RESIDENTS OF KAJI MOHALLA MANER, MAUZA MANER, P.O. & P.S. MANER, DISTRICT PATNA…. DEFENDANTS- PETITIONERS Versus 1. SUSHIL SINGH @ SUSHIL RAI, SON OF LATE KANTHU SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAE DUDHAILA, P.O. & P.S. MANER, DISTRICT PATNA 2. SURESH CHANDRA SINGH, SON OF LATE SADHU SHARAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAM NAGAR, MANER, P.O. & P.S. MANER, DISTRICT PATNA …. PLAINTIFFS - OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Abinash Kumar, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr.S.S. Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate with M/s R.S.Dwivedi, Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi, Lakshman Lal Pandey and Ranjan Kr. Dubey, Advocates *** 4. 21.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned senior counsel for the opposite parties. This civil revision application has been filed by the defendants against the order dated 13.4.2006 passed by the learned Munsif, Danapur in Title (Eviction) Suit No.9 of 2000 by which the learned court below has rejected the petitions of the defendants dated 11.8.2005 and 8.3.2006 for taking the documents filed by them on 4.7.2005 into 2 evidence. The learned court below has rejected the petition on the ground that the evidence of the plaintiffs has started on 29.6.2005 whereas the documents were filed on 4.7.2005 after discharge of P.W.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents were filed in original on 4.7.2005 and the list of the documents was served on the learned counsel for the plaintiffs also on that very date, a copy whereof with endorsement of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has been annexed to the supplementary affidavit as Annexure-7 series. From the photo copy of the list of documents, it appears that the documents were kept in sealed box. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs-opposite parties submits that whereas on the one hand the defendants had produced the documents after the hearing of the suit started and on the other hand, they kept them in sealed box so that the plaintiffs could not know about those documents and could not get opportunity to look to the same so as to rebut them in their evidence through their witnesses. 3 In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the documents were available in the court, but neither the plaintiffs filed any petition for perusal of the documents nor did the court direct the defendants to open the sealed box and allow the plaintiffs to peruse the documents, therefore, the documents remained in custody of the court below, of course, in sealed box. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some more documents were filed on 8.3.2006 which were apparently not in custody of the defendants earlier and, therefore, no delay was caused by the defendants in filing the same in court which were filed as soon as it came in their custody. The learned court below did not consider this aspect of the matter in respect of the documents filed by the defendants on 8.3.2006. It appears that there was some delay in filing of the documents. But the delay does not appear to be deliberate. From the impugned order itself it appears that the defendants have given some explanation with regard to the production of the said documents in court after the evidence of the plaintiffs started. 4 Earlier this application was heard on 20.11.2006. Notices were issued to the opposite parties and during the pendency of this application, further proceeding of Title Eviction Suit no.9 of 2000 was stayed. Hence, this Court finds that in all propriety, the documents so filed by the defendants on 4.7.2005 should have been taken in evidence by the court below and permitted the same to have been marked as Exhibits. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs-opposite parties submits that if the documents are taken into evidence, the plaintiffs-opposite parties should have been given a chance of rebuttal of the same and the defendants should supply a copy of the documents to the plaintiffs for their knowledge about the contents of the documents. In the circumstances, this civil revision application is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.7.2006 is set aside. The learned court below is directed to take these documents filed by the defendants on 4.7.2005 on record for considering them as evidence after due opportunity to the plaintiffs to rebut the same in accordance with 5 law. The court below shall also consider as to whether in the circumstances the documents filed by the defendant-petitioner on 8.3.2006 are also fit to be taken on record and if their explanation that those documents came into their custody during the pendency of the suit and recently appears to be acceptable, it shall do so. Since this is a title eviction suit, the court below is directed to proceed in the matter, if possible, on day-to-day basis and decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months. B.T. (J. N. Singh, J.)