Bishundeo Choudhary @ Dilip Kumar @ Bishudeo Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.859 of 2014 =========================================================== Bishundeo Choudhary @ Dilip Kumar @ Bishudeo Choudhary Son Of Late Raktu Choudhary Resident Of Mohalla - Hathsarganj, P.O. Hajipur, P.S. Town Hajipur, District Vaishali.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Collector, Vaishali At Hajipur
2. The Collector, Vaishali At Hajipur
3. The Circle Officer, Hajipur, District Vaishali
4. Asharfi Rai Son Of Late Janak Rai Resident Of Mohalla - Adalpur, P.O. Hajipur Town, District Vaishali
5. Most. Renu Devi Wife Of Late Raj Kishore Chodhary
6. Ranjeet Choudhary Son Of Late Shivji Choudhary
7. Santosh Choudhary S/O Late Shivji Choudhary respondent nos. 5 to 7 are Resident Of Mohalla - Hathsarganj, P.O. Hajipur, P.S. Town Hajipur, District Vaishali.
.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Adv. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 25-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
By the impugned order, the learned court below has turned down the prayer made on behalf of the plaintiff for adducing some documents in evidence.
It has not been disputed on behalf of the petitioner that the argument on behalf of the defendants in the T.S. No. 484 of 2005 was
Patna High Court CWJC No.859 of 2014 dt.25-10-2016 over and the argument on behalf of the plaintiff commenced and at that stage the petition was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for bringing on record some documents as evidence on the plea that those documents were misplaced. The learned court below after considering the facts and circumstances of the case has turned down the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.
After considering the submissions and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for interdicting the impugned order.
The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(V. Nath, J) Devendra/- U