IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16321 of 2011 Sanjay Kumar Singh & Ors Versus Most Parwati Devi & Ors ---------------------------------- 4. 18.10.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. By the impugned order dated 5.8.2011 passed by Munsif Sheohar-Sitamarhi in Title Suit No.585 of 1974/ Title Suit No. 8 of 2010 court below allowed the application filed by the respondents for receiving the sale deed dated 21.7.1961 in evidence. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that at belated stage that is after closer of evidence of the plaintiff the respondents filed the application and prayed for receiving the sale deed in evidence which the learned court below could not have allowed. Admittedly, the suit is of the year 1974 and the same was decreed ex parte earlier. The ex parte decree was set aside and the defendant filed the written statement in 2010. Since the suit is of the year 1974 the provision as contained in unamended C.P.C. Order 13 Rule 2 shall apply. In a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1999 (1) PLJR 118 Sarvanand Paswan vs. Mahendra Prasad Singh this court has held that provision of Order 13 Rule 2 should be liberally construed. If documents were not in possession of the applicant then the question of delay in filing then does 2 not arise and secondly, if there was any delay in filing the court should take lenient view in condoning the delay. So far submission of the learned counsel that at such a belated stage the document has been filed, in my opinion, on that ground alone, the court should not reject the application for receiving the document. Admittedly, the sale deed is registered sale deed and, therefore, a presumption is in favour of genuineness of the sale deed. It is also well settled principles of law that registered document can be received in evidence without the formal proof and for proving the document no witness is necessary. Further this registered sale deed is of the year 1961 and after 30 years the said document was sought to be produced before the court below. In such view of the matter, under Section 90 of the Evidence Act also it is admissible. In such circumstances, the learned court below exercised the discretionary jurisdiction and only the document has been received in evidence. I therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. However, if so advised, the plaintiff is at liberty to rebut the same. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)