Village- Darihara, P.S.- Dariyapur, District- Saran vs Village And P.O.- Arai, Via- Karaiparsurai, P.S.- Fatuha, At Present

8. Manish Kumar Minor S/O Late Om Prakash Singh, Under The Guardianship Of Their Mother Smt. Chanchala Devi, Petitioner No.7 R/O Village- Arai, P.O.- Arai Via Karai Parsurai, P.S.- Fatuha, At Present Sahjanpur, District-Patna, At Present R/O Barihar, Ward No. 4/13, Police Station- K. Hat, District- Purnea

9. Satish Kumar Minor S/O Late Om Prakash Singh, Under The Guardianship Of Their Mother Smt. Chanchala Devi, Petitioner No. 7 R/O Village- Arai, P.O.- Arai Via Karai Parsurai, P.S.- Fatuha, At Present Sahjanpur, District- Patna, At Present R/O Barihar, Ward No. 4/13, Police Station- K. Hat, District- Purnea

10. Chakrabarti Kumar Singh Minor S/O Siya Ram Singh, Petitioner No. 4, Under The Guardianship Of His Father And Natural Guardian Siya Ram Singh R/O Village- Arai, P.O.- Arai Via Karai Parsurai, P.S.- Fatuha, At Present Sahjanpur, District-Patna, At Present R/O Barihar, Ward No. 4/13, Police Station- K. Hat, District- Purnea

11. Tuhuka Devi D/O Late Mahadeo Singh, And W/O Sukhdeo Singh R/O Village- Darihara, P.S.- Dariyapur, District- Saran Versus .... .... Petitioner/s

1. Sheo Nandan Singh S/O Late Raj Karan Singh R/O Mohalla- Barihat, Ward no. 4/13, Police Station- Khajanchi Hat, District-Purnea, Permanent R/O Village And P.O.- Arai, Via- Karaiparsurai, P.S.- Fatuha, At Present Patna High Court CWJC No.6797 of 2012 ( 2 / 4) dt.11-04-2013 Sahjanpur, District- Patna

2. Krishna Kumar Singh S/O Late Raj Karan Singh R/O Mohalla- Barihat, Ward no. 4/13, Police Station- Khajanchi Hat, District-Purnea, Permanent R/O Village And P.O.- Arai, Via- Karaiparsurai, P.S.- Fatuha, At Present Sahjanpur, District- Patna

3. Most. Shiv Kumari Devi W/O Late Ram Bilash Singh R/O Mohalla- Barihat, Ward no. 4/13, Police Station- Khajanchi Hat, District-Purnea, Permanent R/O Village And P.O.- Arai, Via- Karaiparsurai, P.S.- Fatuha, At Present Sahjanpur, District- Patna

4. Pramod Kumar Singh S/O Sheo Nandan Singh R/O Mohalla- Barihat, Ward no. 4/13, Police Station- Khajanchi Hat, District-Purnea, Permanent R/O Village And P.O.- Arai, Via- Karaiparsurai, P.S.- Fatuha, At Present Sahjanpur, District- Patna

5. Manoj Kumar Singh S/O Sheo Nandan Singh R/O Mohalla- Barihat, Ward no. 4/13, Police Station- Khajanchi Hat, District-Purnea, Permanent R/O Village And P.O.- Arai, Via- Karaiparsurai, P.S.- Fatuha, At Present Sahjanpur, District- Patna

6. Rakesh Kumar S/O Late Ram Bilash Singh R/O Mohalla- Barihat, Ward no. 4/13, Police Station- Khajanchi Hat, District-Purnea, Permanent R/O Village And P.O.- Arai, Via- Karaiparsurai, P.S.- Fatuha, At Present Sahjanpur, District- Patna

7. Mukesh Kumar S/O Late Ram Bilash Singh R/O Mohalla- Barihat, Ward no. 4/13, Police Station- Khajanchi Hat, District-Purnea, Permanent R/O Village And P.O.- Arai, Via- Karaiparsurai, P.S.- Fatuha, At Present Sahjanpur, District- Patna

8. Rajib Kumar S/O Krishna Kumar Singh R/O Mohalla- Barihat, Ward no. 4/13, Police Station- Khajanchi Hat, District-Purnea, Permanent R/O Village And P.O.- Arai, Via- Karaiparsurai, P.S.- Fatuha, At Present Sahjanpur, District- Patna

9. Sanjib Kumar S/O Krishna Kumar Singh R/O Mohalla- Barihat, Ward no. 4/13, Police Station- Khajanchi Hat, District-Purnea, Permanent R/O Village And P.O.- Arai, Via- Karaiparsurai, P.S.- Fatuha, At Present Sahjanpur, District- Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent no.4 : Mr. Naresh Prasad, Adv. : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER

11.04.2013 The present petition has been filed for quashing the part of the order dated 9.2.2012 passed by Sub Judge-V, Purnea in Title Suit No. 230 of 2004 whereby, inter alia, the learned Trial Court has accepted all the documents of the Patna High Court CWJC No.6797 of 2012 ( 3 / 4) dt.11-04-2013 defendant-respondent except one.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners invites attention to the provisions of Order 13 Rule 1 which requires the parties to produce all the documents before the settlement of issues. In the present case it is stated that such documents have been produced much later on after examination of 3 witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant-respondent on the other hand invites attention to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1A(2) and submits that the same have to be read in conjunction with Order 13 Rule 1 and which permit belated production of documents where the defendant was not in a position or power of the defendant. It is shown from his petition filed under Order 13 Rule 1 and 2 that the documents in question were lying with the concerned erstwhile advocate in connection with T.S. No. 198 of 1975 and could only be produced much later in January, 2012. He also relies on the decision of the Apex Court in 1994 (4) SCC 659 (Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy & Anr. Vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy & Ors.) wherein it has been held as under: …..It is settled law that, if the documents are found to be relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy, and when the court felt that interest of justice requires that the documents may be received, exercising the power under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC the appellate court would receive the documents and consider their effect thereof. When such is the position, when the documents are sought to be produced in the trial court, before the arguments are completed, normally they may be received; an opportunity given to prove them and rebuttal if any and their relevance and effect they Patna High Court CWJC No.6797 of 2012 ( 4 / 4) dt.11-04-2013 may have, be considered in deciding the issues arising in the controversy.

4. Learned Court below has duly taken due note of the relevant facts and circumstances and thus this Court is of the view that no fault can be found with the impugned order allowing the documents of the defendant-respondent condoning the delay. It is well settled that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 this Court would not substitute its own view for the one taken by the concerned Court if the latter be a legally tenable one and does not otherwise suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error.

5. The writ petition is accordingly without merit and dismissed as such.

6. The learned Court below should proceed with the matter and dispose of the suit in accordance with law without undue delay, keeping in view the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 2953 of 2010 (Annexure-1). Fahad. ( Vikash Jain, J. )