IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No. 829 of 2008 Rukmani Devi wife of Parmeshwar Sah, D/o Late Laljit Sah, resident of village Bhaluwa Charghara, P.S. Jhajha, District Jamui. ……………………………… Defendant No.2-Petitioner. Versus 1. Pancha Devi D/o Late Laljit Sah, W/o Sri Gopal Sah, resident of village Punashi Bhagwanpur, P.O. Barakola, P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar, Jharkhand, at present village Charghara Bhaluwa, P.S. Jhajha, District Jamui. ………………………………Plaintiff-Opposite Party 1st set. 2. Gaya Devi wife of late Laljit Sah, resident of village Bhaluwa Charghara, P.S. Jhajha, District Jamui. 3. Ahilya Devi wife of Dilip Sah, D/o Laljit Sah, resident of Sita Rampur, P.O. & P.S. Sita Rampur, District Bardhwan, West Bengal. 4. Bindu Devi D/o Laljit Sah, W/o Prem Sah, resident of Sita Rampur, P.O. & P.S. Sita Rampur, District Bardhwan, West Bengal……….Defendants-Opposite Party IInd set. For the petitioner : Mr. Arjun Pd. Keshri, Advocate. For the Opp.Parties : M/s. Ajay Kr. Singh and Pankaj Kr. Sinha, Advocates. ----------- 05/ 30.06.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.2 challenging order dated 27.03.2008 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Jamui rejected his application and refused to consider the alleged will as well as photocopy of the voter list as exhibits in Title Suit No.25 of 2006. The aforesaid title suit was filed by plaintiff-opposite party no.1 for partition of the suit land and for other ancillary reliefs, whereafter both the parties appeared and after considering their respective pleadings issues were framed and evidence of the parties started and only after closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, a 2 petition was filed by the defendant-petitioner for treating some documents as exhibits. From the impugned order it transpires that apart from a will, photocopy of voter list as well as certified copy of complaint petition was sought to be admitted as exhibits in the suit by the defendant-petitioner but the learned court below by its impugned order rejected the said will and refused to treat it as an exhibit and also refused to admit photocopy of voter list as an exhibit, but it accepted certified copy of the complaint as an exhibit as no objection was raised by the plaintiff with respect thereto. After hearing the parties and after considering the materials on record, including the impugned order, it is quite apparent that apart from the will in question being unregistered it was never probated and it was sought to be filed only after the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. In the said circumstances the learned court below was quite justified in rejecting the said prayer of the defendant. So far the voter list is concerned, only photocopy of the voter list was sought to be marked as an exhibit, which was rightly refused by the learned court below. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below, nor does it find any jurisdictional error in the same. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)