IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1766 of 2009 1. BIRENDRA KUMAR SAH @ BIJENDRA PD. SAH S/O LATE SHIV LAL SAH R/O MOHALLA- KARICHAK, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. ---------- Defendant-Petitioner Versus 1. RAM NARAYAN PRASAD SAH S/O LATE KAMLA PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- NASUD BIGHA, KAZI CHAK, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 2. VIDYA DEVI W/O LATE KAMLA PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- NASUD BIGHA, KAZI CHAK, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 3. INDRAJEET KUMAR S/O LATE KAMLA PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- NASUD BIGHA, KAZI CHAK, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 4. JAGJEET KUMAR S/O LATE KAMLA PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- NASUD BIGHA, KAZI CHAK, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA 5. RANI GUPTA D/O LATE KAMLA PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- NASUD BIGHA, KAZI CHAK, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 6. RESHMA GUPTA D/O LATE KAMLA PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- NASUD BIGHA, KAZI CHAK, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 7. RESHMI DEVI D/O LATE KAMLA PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- NASUD BIGHA, KAZI CHAK, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 8. RAKHI GUPTA D/O LATE KAMLA PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- NASUD BIGHA, KAZI CHAK, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 9. SURENDRA PRASAD SAH @ SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA S/O VIRENDRA KUMAR R/O MOHALLA- NASUD BIGHA, KAZI CHAK, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. -------- Plaintiffs/Opposite Party 1st Set 10. BANKIM CHAND S/O VIRENDRA KUMAR R/O MOHALLA- NASUD BIGHA, KAZI CHAK, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 10A SUMAN SAMEER @ RAJA S/O VIRENDRA KUMAR R/O MOHALLA- NASUD BIGHA, KAZI CHAK, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 10B PRASHANT KUMAR @ MASTU S/O VIRENDRA KUMAR R/O MOHALLA- NASUD BIGHA, KAZI CHAK, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 11. UMESH KUMAR S/O VIRENDRA KUMAR R/O MOHALLA- NASUD BIGHA, KAZI CHAK, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 12. NEEL KAMAL S/O VIRENDRA KUMAR R/O MOHALLA- NASUD BIGHA, KAZI CHAK, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 13. VIVEK KUMAR S/O VIRENDRA KUMAR R/O MOHALLA- NASUD BIGHA, KAZI CHAK, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 14. BUDDHA KUMAR MINOR S/O NARENDRA KUMAR SAH UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR FATHER NARENDRA KUMAR SAH R/O MOHALLA- NASUD BIGHA, KAZI CHAK, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 15. CHHOTE KUMAR MINOR S/O NARENDRA KUMAR SAH UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR FATHER NARENDRA KUMAR SAH R/O MOHALLA- NASUD BIGHA, KAZI CHAK, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 16. PRAKASH DEVI D/O LATE SHIV LAL SAH R/O MOHALLA- NASUD BIGHA, KAZI CHAK, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 17. SMT. SUNITA DEVI D/O LATE BASUDEV PRASAD SAH BIBHUTI AND W/O PROFESSOR SHEO PRASAD MOHALLA- SALIMPUR, NILAMGALI, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 18. SMT. SHOBHA DEVI D/O LATE BASUDEV PRASAD SAH BIBHUTI AND W/O DR. VIJAY PRASAD MOHALLA- SALIMPUR, NILAMGALI, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 2 19. SMT. NIRU GUPTA W/O SRI HARINANDAN GUPTA THROUGH G.E.C. DRAWING OFFICE, P.O.- NAINI ALLAHABAD R/O MOHALLA- SALEMPUR, BARH, P.O.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 20. SMT. NIRMALA DEVI W/O SURENDRA PRASAD THROUGH ASHA DEEP TEXTILES, P.O.- RAJ DHANBAD, GIRIDIH R/O MOHALLA- SALEMPUR, BARH, P.O.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 21. SMT. MEENA DEVI W/O MAHENDRA PRASAD, JUNIOR ENGINEER, P.O.- HARSIDIHI, MOTIHARI R/O MOHALLA- SALEMPUR, BARH, P.O.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 22. MADHURI DEVI W/O RAM PRASAD, D/O LATE BALESHWAR PRASAD SAH R/O MOHALLA- SALEMPUR, BARH, P.O.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 23. RENUKA DEVI W/O ASHOK KUMAR, D/O LATE BALESHWAR PRASAD SAH R/O MOHALLA- SALEMPUR, BARH, P.O.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 24. USHA DEVI W/O TALESHWAR PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- PAIJAWAPAR, WARD NO. 10, BARH, DISTT.- PATNA THROUGH JAGDAMBA INDUSTRIES, BARH. 25. NAVIN KUMAR SAH S/O LATE HARI LAL SAH R/O MOHALLA- PAIJAWAPAR, WARD NO. 10, BARH, DISTT.- PATNA THROUGH JAGDAMBA INDUSTRIES, BARH. 26. ARUN KUMAR SAH S/O LATE RAMESHWAR PRASAD SAH R/O MOHALLA- PAIJAWAPAR, WARD NO. 10, BARH, DISTT.- PATNA THROUGH JAGDAMBA INDUSTRIES, BARH. 27. MOST. KALAWATI DEVI W/O LATE RAMESWAR PRASAD SAH R/O MOHALLA- PAIJAWAPAR, WARD NO. 10, BARH, DISTT.- PATNA THROUGH JAGDAMBA INDUSTRIES, BARH. 28. RAJ KUMAR MINOR SON OF ARUN KUMAR UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF KALAWATI DEVI R/O MOHALLA- PAIJAWAPAR, WARD NO. 10, BARH, DISTT.- PATNA THROUGH JAGDAMBA INDUSTRIES, BARH. 29. PAWAN KUMAR MINOR SON OF ARUN KUMAR UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF KALAWATI DEVI R/O MOHALLA- PAIJAWAPAR, WARD NO. 10, BARH, DISTT.- PATNA THROUGH JAGDAMBA INDUSTRIES, BARH. 30. HARSH VARDHAN SAH S/O LATE BASUDEV PRASAD SAH BIBHUTI R/O MOHALLA- SALEMPUR, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 31. SURAJDEO PRASAD SAH S/O LATE JUGESHWAR PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- SALEMPUR, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 32. PRADEEP KUMAR SAH S/O LATE JUGESHWAR PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- SALEMPUR, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 33. MOST. PUSPA DEVI W/O LATE DAYANAND SAH R/O MOHALLA- SALEMPUR, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 34. ANAND KUMAR @ RICKEY S/O LATE DAYANAND SAH R/O MOHALLA- SALEMPUR, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 35. SANAND KUMAR @ VIKKI S/O LATE DAYANAND SAH R/O MOHALLA- SALEMPUR, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 36. RINKI KUMARI D/O LATE DAYANAND SAH R/O MOHALLA- SALEMPUR, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 37. PUJA KUMARI MINOR D/O LATE DAYANAND SAH UNDER THEIR GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR MOTHER PUSPA DEVI R/O MOHALLA- SALEMPUR, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 38. PRIYANKA KUMARI MINOR D/O LATE DAYANAND SAH UNDER THEIR GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR MOTHER PUSPA DEVI R/O MOHALLA- SALEMPUR, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 3 39. ASHOK KUMAR SAH S/O LATE BALWSHWAR PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- SALEMPUR, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. -------- Defendant nos. 1 to 9 and 14 to 18 (including their substituted heirs) respondent 2nd set ----- Opposite parties 2nd set. 40. MOST. UMA DEVI W/O LATE PRAHLAD PRASAD SAH R/O MOHALLA- SALEMPUR, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 41. CHANDRIKA PRASAD SAH S/O LATE RAM CHANDER PRASAD SAH R/O MOHALLA- SALEMPUR, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. ------ Proforma Defendants 19 to 20 --- respondents 3rd set – Opposite parties 3rd set. 42. MOST. SHANTI DEVI W/O LATE SURENDRA PRASAD SAH R/O MOHALLA- KARICHAK, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 43. NARENDRA KUMAR SAH S/O LATE SHIV LAL SAH R/O MOHALLA- KARICHAK, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. 44. MITHILESH KUMAR SAH @ STENO S/O LATE SHIV LAL SAH R/O MOHALLA- KARICHAK, P.S.- BARH, DISTT.- PATNA. ----- Defendants/Proforma opposite party 4th set ----------- 2 2.12.2009 Heard Mr. Pushkar Narayain Shahi, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner and Mr. Sidharth Prasad, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-opposite parties. Mr. Shahi while assailing the impugned order dated 20.8.2009 as with regard to the rejection of the prayer of the defendant- petitioner for exhibiting certain documents would basically submit that the court below has committed a jurisdictional error in refusing to those documents to take into evidence on a plea that since the suit had been proceeded ex-parte against the defendant nos. 2 to 2(Kha), the documents filed by such parties could not have been taken on record at 4 the instance of the other set of defendants including the petitioner. Mr. Sidharth, however, would submit that every party contesting a civil suit has to proceed on its own and cannot be allowed to use the documents of any person who has not been contesting the suit. In this regard he has also questioned the maintainability of the civil revision application on the ground that those persons who had filed such documents and had made a prayer for its being taken into evidence, namely, defendant nos. 2 to 2(Kha), have not approached this Court and in fact, the suit against them has been proceeding ex- parte and therefore, the petitioner will have no locus-standi to challenge the said order on their behalf. In the considered opinion of this Court, if the petitioner in capacity of defendants were eager to get any document on record by way of its being exhibited as evidence, they were required to file their specific application. The application which has been filed by the defendant nos. 10 to 13 including the petitioner would go to show that it was 5 almost a vague application, which reads as follows:- “1. That these defendants are contesting the suit and as such they adopt all the document filed by defendants filed by the defendants 2 to 2 Kh separately and join hands with them. The defendants 2 to 2 Kh and kthese defendants have same and similar defence in this suit. There is no conflicting claim or interest in the suit among them. 2. That these defendants should have also filed all those document which defendants 2 to 2 Kh have filed but as those were not in their custody from before, they could not file it earlier. Now as those documents have been brought on the record of suit, these defendants accept the same and request to mark those as exhibits on their behalf. 3. That all those document filed by defendants 2 to 2 Kh are higly essential for better adjudication of the matter in issue and same will assist very much to the court in adjudication of this suit. 4. That these defendants also join hand with defendants 2 to 2 Kh on whose behalf two petitions for calling for the originals document from concerned officer or court have been filed and they adopt the two petition also as their own.” 6 That apart, this Court would also find no flaw in detailed discussion made by the court below in the impugned order where it has categorized the need of such document to be taken on record and has gone to hold that the same was the delaying tactics adopted by the defendant-petitioner despite being well awre of the time limit fixed by this Court in the connected main case C.R. No. 1769 of 2008. This Court, therefore, would hold that this civil revision application espousing cause of defendant nos.2 to 2(Kha) is not maintainable as also the prayer made by the petitioner was also fit to be rejected on its face value on account of its being wholly vague and unspecific. Consequently, this Court would find no merit in this civil revision application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)