IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7236 of 2006 Life Insurance Corporation Of India through its Divisional Manager, Patna Divisional Office, Fraser Road, P.S. & District- Patna … …. Plaintiff-Petitioner Versus 1. Shankar Dutt Sharma son of Late Bhagwan Sharma; 2. Ashok Kumar Sharma son of Barmeshwar Nath Sharma; 3. Sumeshwar Sharma son of Late Mathura Sharma; 4. Mahesh Dutt Sharma son of Bhola Nath Sharma; all are resident of Mohalla- Sohani Patti, Buxar, P.S. Buxar, District Buxar …. Defendants 1st Set- Respondents 1st Set. 5. Sri Ram Laxman Janki, Deities, through Mahanth Venkatachari- Chela of Sri Chaturbhuj Chari (deceased), Ahirauli Math, Village- Ahirauli, P.S. Buxar, District Buxar; 6. Mahanth Venkatachari- Chela of Sri Chaturbhuj Chari (deceased), Ahirauli Math, Village- Ahirauli, P.S. Buxar, District Buxar; 7. Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, Patna through its President, P.S. and District- Patna … Defendants 2nd Set-Respondents 2nd Set. 8. Smt. Sunayana Devi wife of Bindhyachal Pathak; 9. Narendra Pathak son of Bindhyachal Pathak; both resident of Village Jaso, P.S. and District Buxar, at present Turha Toli, Buxar, P.S. and District Buxar 10. Vijay Pathak son of Surajbansh Pathak 11. Sushil Pathak son of Narayan Pathak 12. Ajay Pathak son of Narayan Pathak, all resident of Village Jaso, P.S. and District Buxar, at present Turha Toli, Buxar, P.S. and District Buxar … Defendants 3rd Set-Respondents 3rd Set. 13. The Sub-Judge-IIIrd Court Buxar, P.S. & District Buxar 14. The Registrar, Civil Court, Ara (Bhojpur) 15. State of Bihar …. ….. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner :M/s Umesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate & Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Advocate For the State :Mr. A.B. Pandey, AC to AAG-12 02/ 13.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition is directed against the 2 order dated 10.3.2005, Annexure-6 passed by Sub- Judge-III, Buxar in Title Suit No. 11 of 1988 whereunder request of the plaintiff- petitioner to review the order dated 4.8.2004 passed in the same suit has been rejected by the court below on the ground that the plaintiff- petitioner had earlier undertaken before the court below to file Civil Revision against the order dated 4.8.2004 and for that purpose availed adjournment for about 2 ½ months, but no Civil Revision petition was filed in this Court against the order dated 4.8.2004 and civil review petition was filed in the court below itself seeking review of the order dated 4.8.2004, which was rejected under impugned order dated 10.3.2005, Annexure-6. 3. From perusal of the order dated 10.3.2005, Annexure-6, it appears that under earlier orders dated 4.8.2004, request of the plaintiff- petitioner to accept the photocopy of the sale certificate dated 20.3.1967 passed in Execution Case No. 26 of 1957 and the order of delivery of possession dated 11.4.1968 passed in the same execution case as secondary evidence was rejected. 3 4. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff- petitioner that in view of the report of the Record Room dated 8.7.2004 that the aforesaid documents applied for are not available in the Record Room, the request of the petitioner for accepting the photocopy of those documents by way of secondary evidence should have been allowed but such prayer was rejected under order dated 8.7.2004 and the request to review the order dated 8.7.2004 was also rejected under order dated 10.3.2005. It is further submitted on behalf of the plaintiff- petitioner that as the documents are not available in the Record Room, certified copy of the same could not have been obtained and filed by the petitioner. 5. From the impugned order dated 10.3.2005, Annexure-6, it appears that the request of the petitioner for grant of certified copy of the two documents was rejected by the authorities of the Record Room stating “ not found on the date given”. From the aforesaid endorsement made by the authorities of the Record Room it appears that the documents were not found on the date given in the requisition, it does not, however, 4 appear that the documents are not available in the Record Room. 6. Accordingly, I direct the trial court to seek further report from the Record Room within stipulated time not exceeding one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order in the court below and if from the subsequent report of the record room still it appears that the two documents required i.e. the sale certificate and delivery of possession certificate are not available for granting the petitioner certified copy then to consider the request of the petitioner for admitting the photocopy of those documents as secondary evidence on payment of adequate cost by the petitioner. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of directing the court below to expedite the hearing of the suit so as to conclude the same as early as possible in any case within six months from the date of receipt of subsequent report from the record room. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)