( 2025:JHHC:16295 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 43 of 2025 Smt. Sushma Baliase, aged about 52 years, wife of Shri Ajit Kumar Baliase, resident of Meenalay, Bilasi Town, Deoghar, District-Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar through her GPOA (General Power of Attorney) husband, Ajit Kumar Baliase, son of late M.P. Baliase, resident of Meenalay, Bilasi Town, Deoghar, District-Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar …………Petitioner VERSUS 1. Central Bank Karamchari Co-operative Society Ltd Swawlambi Patna, Gulzarbagh, Patna 800007 through its Secretary Shri Dilip Kumar S/O Shri Sukhdeo Prasad, having husband office at Sakarigali, Gulzarbagh, P.O.and P.S. Gulzarbagh, Patna-800007 State-Bihar 2. Shambhu Sharan Singh 3. Arbind Kumar Singh, 4. Rajiv Kumar Singh, all sons of Late Jitendra Deo Singh, R/O Mohalla Williams Town, Rani Kothi, Deoghar, District- Deoghar P.O. Deoghar. P.O & P.S. Deoghar .. ...Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : In Person (Through General Power of Attorney) For the O.P. No.1 :Mr. Mohammad Asghar, Advocate For the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate 05/Dated: 20/06/2025 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Baliase who is General Power of Attorney Holder of Smt. Sushma Baliase, Mr. Mohammad Asghar, learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 and Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4. 2. This petition has been filed for review of order dated 11.02.2025 passed by this Court in C.M.P. No. 475 of 2024 and C.M.P. No. 597 of 2024. 3. The petitioner appearing through General Power of Attorney submits that there is apparent error on the face of order of the High Court and petition filed by the petitioner before the learned court has not been rightly ( 2025:JHHC:16295 ) appreciated and erroneously C.M.Ps have been dismissed. He submits that several documents have already been filed by him before the learned court. On these grounds he submits that order dated 11.02.2025 passed in above C.M.Ps. may kindly be reviewed. 4. By order dated 11.02.2025 both C.M.P. No. 475 of 2024 and C.M.P. No. 597 of 2024 has been decided and following order has been passed:- “ Heard Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Md. Asghar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 1 and Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 in both these cases. 2. Both these cases are arising out of the same suit, in view of that both the cases are being heard together with the consent of the parties. 3. Both these petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in C.M.P. No. 475 of 2024, prayer is made for quashing of the orders dated 26.06.2023 and 19.03.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-V, Deoghar and learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-III respectively in Original Suit No. 24 of 2007, whereby the learned court has been pleased to fix the case for final arguments. 4. In C.M.P. No. 597 of 2024, prayer is made for setting aside the order dated 10.04.2024, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Deoghar, in Civil Mis. (Transfer) Petition No. 08 of 2024, whereby, the petition for transfer of the case to another court has been rejected by the learned court. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Original Suit No. 24 of 2007 was instituted by the petitioner for specific performance of contract. He submits that the defendant filed a petition on 15.02.2010 for seeking leave for exhibiting certificate of Central Bank of India dated 04.02.2010, which was allowed by the learned court with right to rebut the same. He submits that in absence of providing opportunity of rebuttal, the learned court has fixed the case for final argument, in view of that the said order, by which, the argument was directed to be placed is bad, as the petitioner has not been given the opportunity to rebut the same. He further submits that on the grounds mentioned in the petition, the transfer petition was filed and the learned Principal District Judge-Deoghar has erroneously dismissed the same with cost. On these grounds, he submits that all the impugned orders are bad in law and the same may kindly be set aside. 6. Md. Asghar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 1 in both the cases draws the attention of the court to the petition dated 15.07.2016, contained in Annexure-2 series in CMP No. 475 of 2024 and submits that the leave for filing the document was sought by the petitioner, which was allowed by the learned court by order dated 03.04.2023, as contained in Annexure-5 in the said CMP. He submits that the erroneous ground has been taken in this case to the effect that without allowing the same, the learned court has fixed the case for final argument. He further draws the attention of the court to Section 4 of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 and submits that mode of proof of entries in the bankers’ books and any certified copy are the evidence in a legal proceeding. He further submits that even if the further document, the petitioner is having, he can file the same before the learned court, which can be considered as an evidence by the learned court. He then submits that however, it is not disclosed that the petitioner has filed any further document before the learned court or not. On these grounds, he submits that the learned court has rightly passed the aforesaid ( 2025:JHHC:16295 ) orders. 7. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 in both the cases draws the attention of the court to the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Deoghar dated 10.04.2024 contained in Annexure-6 and submits that the learned District Judge has discussed entire aspect of the matter thread bare and answer on the point of transfer of the case. He submits that only to delay the proceeding, such, tactics has been adopted by the petitioner herein. 8. The Original suit was instituted by the petitioner herein for specific performance of contract in the year 2007. By the order dated 05.05.2010, the learned court has been pleased to allow the documents filed on behalf of defendant No. 1 and liberty was given to the plaintiff to rebut the same, if so desires. Annexure-2 series in CMP No. 475 of 2024 is the leave petition, filed on 15.07.2017 by the petitioner, which has been allowed by the learned court by order dated 03.04.2023 contained in Annexure-5. Thus, it is crystal clear that the ground taken by the petitioner that in absence of allowing the document, the learned court has fixed the suit for final argument is erroneous. It is not disclosed that further what document, the petitioner want to bring before the learned court and even if he is desirous of producing any document of the bank, that can be considered in light of Section 4 of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891. 9. For ready reference, Section 4 of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 is produced hereinbelow:- “4. Mode of proof of entries in bankers books.-Subject to the provisions of this Act, a certified copy of any entry in a bankers book shall in all legal proceedings be received as prima facie evidence of the existence of such entry, and shall be admitted as evidence of the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded in every case where, and to the same extent as, the original entry itself is now by law admissible, but not further or otherwise.” 10. In view of the above, the court finds that in absence of any documents to suggest to be further bring on record, no positive order can be passed and the learned court has rightly passed the order by way of fixing the suit for final argument. 11. In the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Deoghar dated 10.04.2024, as contained in Annexure-6, it has come that the said suit is the oldest one of the said district and after much efforts now the suit has come to the stage of argument. The learned Principal District Judge further rightly held that it is for the court to decide at any belated stage, as any document is required to be taken on record or not. In the cases in hand, no document has been placed on record as to what document petitioner is further want to bring on record and further the leave petition for documents has already been allowed by the learned court. 12. In view of the above, the court finds that there is no illegality in the aforesaid impugned orders and there is no merit in both these petitions. As such, both these petitions are dismissed.” 5. In para 8 of the aforesaid order this Court found that Annexure-2 series in CMP No. 475 of 2024 is leave petition which was filed on 15.07.2017 by the petitioner which has been allowed by the learned court by order dated 03.04.2023 contained in Annexure-5. The submission was made that document was already there and in view of that this Court has further examined Annexure-5 of C.M.P. No. 475 of 2024 and found that petition was for leave ( 2025:JHHC:16295 ) and the learned court by order dated 03.04.2023 in clear terms allowed the said petition dated 15.07.2017. That is finding of this Court. Thus, there is no apparent error on the face of record and the Court found that the argument for fixing the case for final argument is not correct and the document has already been allowed by order dated by 03.04.2023 by the learned court and further this Court considered Section 4 of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 and finding has been given in para 11 of the aforesaid order. 6. The Court finds that there is no apparent error on the face of record. It is well settled that review petition can be entertained if apparent error is there on the face of record. 7. In the light of above discussions, this Court finds that there is no apparent error on the face of record and accordingly, this civil review petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/