1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.513 of 2007 1. Dr. Bhuwneshwar Sahi, son of late Gauri Shankar Sahi, resident of Sahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District Patna. 2. Er. Kamleshwari Sahi, son of late Gauri Shankar Sahi 3. Sheela Sahi, wife of Dr. Bhuwneshwar Sahi 4. Pushpa Sahi, wife of Er. Kamleshwar Sahi 5. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sahi, son of Dr. Bhuwneshwar Sahi 6. Meera Sahi wife of Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sahi 7. Er. Alok Kumar Sahi, son of Er. Kamleshwar Sahi All residents of Sahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District Patna. …. Plaintiffs-Petitioners versus 1. Steel Authority of India Limited, through its Branch Manager, Branch Sales Office, Luv Kush Tower, V Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna. 2. Assistant General Manager (Eastern Region) Central Marketing Organization, Steel Authority of India Limited, Calcutta. 3. Head Office, Steel Authority of India Limited, Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003. … Defendants- Opposite Parties. ----------- For the Petitioners: Mr. P. K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate. For the Opp. Parties : None. -------- 02/ 02.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by plaintiffs- petitioners challenging order dated 03.01.2007, by which learned Subordinate Judge III, Patna, rejected their petition for taking into evidence in Money Suit No. 129 of 1998 three documents, which are marked as Annexures 1,2 and 3 of this civil revision. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners against the defendants-opposite parties for a decree of a sum of Rs.2,54,117.00 along with interest etc. In the said suit the defendants appeared and contested, whereafter issues were 2 framed and evidence were adduced and arguments started. 4. In the meantime the plaintiffs filed an application in the court below on 30.11.2006 to allow them to mark their aforesaid documents as exhibits as they were nothing else but notices which were replied by the defendants and the defendants had marked those replies as their exhibits. The said application has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 03.01.2007, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that it is no where stated that inspite of due diligence the said documents could not be filed earlier. Furthermore, the plaintiffs-petitioners should have filed the said documents much earlier as they were in their possession and now when the final argument in the case has been taken up and is almost concluded, such a prayer cannot be legally allowed. 6. In the said circumstances, 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. However, the plaintiffs-petitioners will be at liberty to file an application for admitting the said documents as additional evidence in appeal if filed against the final judgment in Money Suit No. 129 of 1998. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )