IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.52 of 2007 COLLECTOR,GOPALGANJ & ORS Versus LALDEO RAI ----------- 03. 01.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. I.A. No.137 of 2007has been filed for condoning the delay of five months in filing of the civil revision. Considering the statements made in the aforesaid interlocutory application the same is allowed and delay in filing of the civil revision is condoned. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of the defendants-petitioners challenging order dated 04.05.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-III, Gopalganj, exhibited two documents said to have been issued by S.D.M.,Hathua and marked as Exts. 9/B and 10 to the suit in Title Suit No. 73 of 1996. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff-opposite party for declaration of title with respect to the suit property and for other ancillary reliefs. Although the suit is about more than a decade old but it was awaiting reply from the defendants-petitioners’ office and was also awaiting receipt of the original documents which were called for from the Office of the District Magistrate. Subsequently certified copies of the letters in question were produced in the court below which considered the facts that xerox copies of the said letters were marked as exhibits in the competent court of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gopalganj and furthermore honouring the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the learned court below - 2 - exhibited the said documents filed by the plaintiffs themselves and directed them to be marked as exhibits, on the presumption that the originals thereof have been lost or destroyed as the authorities concerned were not sending them. Learned court below also found from the perusal of the letter of the learned District Magistrate that errors were committed on the part of the then Circle Officer-cum- Executive Magistrate, Hathua and accordingly, actions were being taken by the learned District Magistrate against those officials but that was none of the problem of the learned court below. In the said circumstances the learned court below was justified in passing the impugned order. Hence, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)