IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9322 of 2011 Jogindra Mahto & Ors Versus Deo Narayan Mahto & Ors ---------------------------------- O R D E R 12. 15.12.2011 1. I have heard the learned counsel Mr. Sachchidanand Chaudhari on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel Mr. Bhuvneshwar Prasad on behalf of the respondents. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiffs petitioners against the order dated 13.11.2009 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Tract Court- 3rd, Samastipur in Probate Case No. 5 of 1992/ Title Suit No. 1 of 1992 whereby the learned court below refused to mark the public document i.e. Register-II, chaukidari rasid and rent receipt granted by ex-landlord as exhibit in the case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said documents are essential for just decision in the case but the learned court below rejected the prayer only on the ground of delay. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the argument of the defendants has already been completed and the plaintiffs have to argue the case and at such a belated stage the application has been filed. According to the 2 learned counsel these documents are not necessary in this case because in probate case title cannot be investigated, the genuineness of the will or its valid execution is only required to be gone into. 5. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the defendants’ argument has been closed and the plaintiffs have to argue the case and at this stage the application was filed for production and marking of those documents as exhibit. The learned court below found that no explanation has been given by the plaintiffs regarding the delay. It is well settled principles of law that no doubt the court has the jurisdiction to allow any party to produce the documents at any stage but on the satisfaction that inspite of due diligence shown by the petitioners the documents could not be produced earlier. Moreover in the present case, the application for probate has been filed by the petitioners in the year 1992. The evidences of the parties were closed in 2002. The argument of the defendant was closed and then this application has been filed without giving any explanation. The issue to be decided in the probate case is whether the will in question is genuine or otherwise and whether it has been validly executed or not. In deciding these issues the documents sought to be produced are not at all essential. The question of title cannot be investigated in the probate proceeding. I therefore, find no 3 jurisdictional error or illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. Therefore, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the impugned order cannot be interference with. As such this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)