( 1 ) PRESENT Civil Revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 10. 9. 2008 passed by the Additional District Judge Court, No. 8, Bhadohi in Misc. Case No. 34 of 2004, whereby objection of plaintiff/revisionist against filing of document with Examination-In-Chief on affidavit filed by the defendant/respondents was rejected. ( 2 ) IN the present case, Misc. Case No. 33 of 2004 has been filed by Prem Chandra in the court of Additional District Judge, under Section 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act for being appointed as guardian of master Kush. In the said proceeding, written statement had been filed by Akanchha Jaiswal. denying the claim of plaintiff, but no documentary evidence were filed along with written statement. Issues have been framed. Examination-in-Chief filed by Akanchha Jaiswal under Order 18 Rule 4 of C. P. C. on affidavit and along with Examination-in-Chief five documents have been filed, which were not filed in the written statement and also not mentioned in the list of the documents. Objection had been filed that said document may not be permitted to be filed with the affidavit. Said objection has been over ruled and order has been passed. At this juncture present Civil Revision has been filed. ( 3 ) IN the present case, order impugned has been perused. Along with affidavit, documentary evidence has been filed. Qua the said documentary evidence, opportunity has been provided for to the plaintiff/revisionist to cross-examine the aforementioned incumbent on whose behalf said documents has been filed. ( 4 ) ONCE opportunity to cross-examination has been provided for qua the documents, which has been filed along with affidavit, then as far as interest of plaintiff/revisionist is concerned, same stands fully protected. At this juncture, it has been sought to be contended that witnesses of plaintiff/revisionist have already been examined, and on the basis of these documentary evidence, which has been brought on record, he will have to get his witnesses re-examined. In case plaintiff/revisionist has feeling that on the basis of the such document, he will require recalling of the witnesses, which have already been examined at his behest. ( 5 ) IN this background liberty is given to plaintiff/revisionist to make appropriate application the matter before the concerned court and thereafter, concerned court shall deal with the said application in accordance with law. ( 5 ) IN this background liberty is given to plaintiff/revisionist to make appropriate application the matter before the concerned court and thereafter, concerned court shall deal with the said application in accordance with law. As far as Civil Revision is concerned, no interference is being made, as apparently their does not appear any miscarriage of justice, or causing irreparable injury to the Revisionist and same would in no way would have disposed of the proceeding, warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, civil revision is dismissed. .