IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.12002 of 2011 Yogendra Paswan Versus Baij Nath Singh ---------------------------------- 03. 04.08.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant- petitioner against the order dated 17.03.2011 passed by Munsif II, Munger in title suit no.60 of 1999 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner for calling for the original record of the year 1973 from the office of Circle Officer whereby the purcha was issued in favour of the petitioner on 20.07.1973. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was granted purcha under the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act with regard to the property wherein by mistake, Khata No.28 has been mentioned instead of Khata No.48. The petitioner is residing in the house on the property. At the time of hearing of the suit, it was detected that in the purcha by mistake instead of 48, it has been mentioned as 28. Therefore, he filed the application for calling for the record from the Circle Officer which has been rejected by the Court below. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the witnesses have been examined on behalf of both the parties. The learned Court below found that the 2 witness examined on behalf of the petitioner himself has stated that the property of Khata No.28 has been given through purcha to the petitioner. The learned Court below also observed that both the parties have concluded their arguments in the case and then this application has been filed. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the Court below exercised a jurisdiction beyond his authority or that by the impugned order, failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the reasonings assigned by the Court below. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)