IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10764 of 2011 Mahendra Choudhary Versus Ram Sagar Rai & Ors ---------------------------------- O R D E R 11. 01.12.2011. 1. I have already heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Jha on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Girish Chandra Jha on behalf of the respondent. 2. By the impugned order dated 25.09.2006 passed by Sub Judge XIIth Patna in Title Suit No.369 of 1999, the learned Court below has received the sale deeds dated 03.07.1981 in evidence and marked the same as exhibit D and D/1. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no such sale deed was ever executed by defendant No.4 in favour of the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and, therefore, the documents cannot be marked as an exhibit. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that because the original sale deeds have been misplaced, they have filed certified copy of the sale deeds which has been received in evidence and, therefore, there is no jurisdictional error. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the plaintiff-petitioner himself filed title suit No.369 of - 2 - 1999 against the respondents for declaration of title and further for declaration that the two sale deeds dated 03.07.1981 executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.1, 2 and 3 are inoperative and not binding. Therefore, it appears that execution of these two sale deeds is admitted. The defendant have produced the certified copy of the sale deeds. So far the submission that no sale deed was executed or that fraud was committed or that the sale deeds are not genuine and cannot be relied upon or that no consideration was passed, all are questions to be decided at the time of final hearing of the suit and not at this stage. The Court below has only received the sale deeds in evidence. As stated above, it appears that the existence of the sale deeds are admitted. The Court below has only marked the sale deeds as exhibits. The genuineness or relevancy of the same may be considered at the time of hearing and not at this stage. 6. In view of the above facts, I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the Court below. Therefore, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Patna High Court, Patna The 1stday of December, 2011 Sanjeev/N.A.F.R. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)