IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No. 293 of 2007 Md. Mustafa S/o Md. Habib Hai-ul-Kayam, resident of village Jamo Road, Barharia, P.S. Barharia, District Siwan. …Defendant-Petitioner Versus Md. Vakil Ahmad @ Md. Vakil S/o Md. Ismile Matofa, resident of village Pattibhalua, P.S. Barharia, District Siwan. ….Plaintiff-Opposite Party For the petitioner : M/s Devendra Pd.Sinha, Senior Advocate and A. Alam, Advocate. For the opposite party : M/s Ranjeet Kumar and Dilip Kumar, Advocates. ----------- 04/ 13.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 12.01.2007 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-III, Siwan rejected his petition seeking to bring a sale deed dated 26.05.1992, said to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of third parties, as an evidence in Partition Suit No.86 of 1998. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff- opposite party for partition of the suit land claiming moiety share and for other ancillary reliefs. The sole defendant- petitioner filed his written statement and contested the suit claiming absence of any unity of title and possession between the parties as according to him they had separated as far back as in the year 1950. It transpires that after the pleadings were complete, 2 issues were framed and evidence were led by both the parties argument of the defendant was heard and closed and thereafter when the argument of the plaintiff was also at its closing stage, the defendant filed the aforesaid interlocutory application on 18.12.2006 for taking into evidence the aforesaid registered sale deed dated 26.05.1992. The learned court below heard both the parties in detail and considered all aspects of the matter and found that the defendant had filed the petition at a very belated stage and there was nothing to show that they did not have any prior knowledge of the said deed although it was a registered document and there was presumption in law that it was known. The learned court below also found that sufficient reasons had not been shown by the defendant and his plea was not at all reliable. Considering the facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly this civil revision is dismissed. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)