IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1816 of 2008 GOPAL PRASAD SAH @ GOPAL PRASAD & ORS Versus RAJENDRA PRASAD SAH & ORS ----------- 3 19.2.2009 For the reasons mentioned in I.A. No. 6438 of 2008, the same is allowed and the delay in filing of this application is hereby condoned. Coming to the merits of this case, this Court would find that in a suit of the year 1999, the defendants-petitioners initially did not file the documents in question nor disclosed the trace thereof in their written statement and thereby violated the requirement of the Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As a matter of fact, the copies of such document were also not filed or produced or any explanation for the same was given even at the time of framing of the issues and therefore, the requirement of Order XIII Rule 1 was also not observed. If this be the attitude, this Court would not find any error in the impugned order whereby the court below has recorded the filibusterous attitude of the petitioner in delaying the proceedings on the ground of calling for such documents to which there was no trace in the original pleadings of the petitioners. The reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioners on following part of paragraph no.14 of the written statement:- 14. That, the land of M.S. Khata in question – 21 was given in gift by Late Deonarayan Sah by registered deed of gift to Goptal Prasad Sah, Vijay Kumar Sah and Arun Kumar Sah, the defdt. No. – 1 to 3 after the separation 2 and the land of M.S. Khata 26 was given to Beena Devi wife of Gopal Pd. Sah, Chintamani Devi wife of Vijay Kumar Sah and Geeta Devi W/o Arun Kumar Sah after separation by Late Deo narayan Sah by means of a registered deed being pleased with their services and out of love and affection and they accepted the gift and have been coming in exclusive possession over the same land similarly the land of M.S. Khata in question – 99 was acquired by the defdt. no. -4, Muneshwari Devi and Zeera Devi and the defdt. no. -4 out of their own fund and while in possession over her above said purchased land. She has executed a will of the same in favour of defdt. no. -1 to 3. The land of Mouja – Kuwari, which was owned and purchased by father of the plff. and defdt. – 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 which their Late father sold during his life time himself.” is also misconceived as it may be found that there is no specific mention of any specific will, gift or sale deed in respect of which prayer was made by the petitioner in course of hearing of the suit and that too after completing the oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiffs-opposite parties. The court below has made thread bare discussions of such delaying tactics adopted by the petitioners and the reasons given therein are absolutely correct both on facts and in law. That being so, there is no error in the impugned order and accordingly, this civil revision application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)