IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1745 of 2006 NARAIN SAH & ANR. Versus CHAN SAH & ORS. ----------- 2. 27.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. This civil revision application has been filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners against the order dated 30.6.2006 passed in Title Suit No.38/1999 by learned Munsif, Sikrahana at Motihari by which the application of the plaintiffs-petitioners for getting a document said to be Zaminidari khatian of Bettiah Raj exhibited has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said document was filed in the suit on 11.3.2004 but due to some reasons, the same was not proved and now it should be exhibited and the court should take it on record and mark it as exhibit since the document is of more than 30 years old and is a public document. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that from the impugned order - 2 - itself it appears that the document was a photo copy of the khatian and not the original khatian and, therefore, presumption of genuineness under the provisions of the Evidence Act shall not apply to the photo copy. He further submits that after the said document was filed in the suit by the plaintiffs, evidence has commenced but the plaintiffs did not take care to get it proved and marked as exhibit formally by any competent witness. He also submits that now the evidence of both sides has completed and the suit is fixed for argument and, therefore, at this belated stage, the prayer of the plaintiffs–petitioners cannot be allowed. From the order impugned, it appears that the learned court below had examined the document itself and found it to be of doubtful nature. Be that as it may, since the plaintiffs had sufficient opportunity to get the said document proved and marked as exhibit by a competent witness, the court below has rightly rejected the application of the plaintiffs at the fag end of the suit. - 3 - In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned of the learned court below and, therefore, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, this civil revision application is dismissed. B.T. (J.N. Singh, J.)