JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Uma Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 18.03.2017 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-IV, Motihari, East Champaran in Title Suit No. 71 of 2009, as contained in Annexure-2 to this application, whereby he has rejected the petition dated 06.03.2017 filed by the petitioner for calling the original records of Jamabandi of the suit property from the Bettiah Raj for the purpose of marking the same as exhibit. 3. Mr. Uma Kant Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial court erred in law while passing the impugned order dated 18.03.2017. It also failed to appreciate that Jamabandi records would be the most important document for deciding the claim of the parties inasmuch as the claim of the petitioner that after settlement of the suit property in favor of his ancestor Ramsharan Kumhar @ Ramsharan Pandit Jamabandi was created in his name and rent receipt was also issued was denied by the respondents, who claimed that no such Jamabandi was created. He contended that in view of the nature of dispute, the Jamabandi record is essential for just adjudication of the present suit. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that earlier the petitioner had filed an application on 08.02.2017 for marking the certified copy of the Jamabandi records, which was rejected on 18.02.2017. After the order dated 18.02.2017 was passed, the petitioner did not challenge the said order before any court. Hence, the order dated 18.02.2017 passed in the suit has attained finality. He has further contended that while passing the impugned order, the trial court has categorically held that the certified copy of the Jamabandi was obtained by the petitioner in the year 2008, but the same was not brought on record. He has also contended that the final argument on behalf of the defendant respondents had already been concluded and only thereafter a petition was filed by the petitioner for calling the original records of Jamabandi of the suit property from the Bettiah Raj, which has rightly been rejected by the trial court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner had filed Title Suit No. 71 of 2009 for declaration of his title and confirmation of his possession over the suit property having khata no. 813, khesra no. 5433/3, area 12 katha 8 dhurs in village Jaishinghpur, P.S. Turkauliya, District-East Champaran. He had further sought for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering in his possession and cutting away the trees from the suit property. 7. The respondents appeared in the suit and filed their written statement. The parties adduced their evidences and after the evidences were closed, arguments commenced. The defendant respondents had already concluded their argument and when the argument on behalf the plaintiff-petitioner was on the verge of closure, an application under Order XVI, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) was filed for summoning the Jamabandi records, which was rejected by the trial court vide order impugned dated 18.03.2017. 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 18.03.2017, the petitioner has filed the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Order XVI, Rule 6 of the CPC deals with the documents, which are in possession of the third party, who may be called as a witness. It provides that any person may be summoned to produce a document, without being summoned to give evidence; and any person summoned merely to produce a document shall be deemed to have complied with the summons if he causes such document to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same. 10. The provisions prescribed under Order XVI, Rule 6 of the CPC though empowers the court to order production of document, the said power is discretionary in nature and the discretion has to be exercised taking into consideration the exigency, justness and relevancy of the document to the matter in question. The said power is not to be exercised automatically without considering the bnonafide of the application. In a given circumstance, if the court comes to a conclusion that the application is not bonafide, it would be fully justified in rejecting the application for summoning any person to produce the documents. 11. The said power is not to be exercised automatically without considering the bnonafide of the application. In a given circumstance, if the court comes to a conclusion that the application is not bonafide, it would be fully justified in rejecting the application for summoning any person to produce the documents. 11. In the instant case, the trial court took into consideration the fact that at a very belated stage a prayer was made by the petitioner to summon Jamabandi records. It also took into consideration the fact that an almost identical prayer made by the petitioner was rejected earlier, which was never challenged by the petitioner before any court. It further took into consideration the fact that the arguments have been closed on behalf of the defendants and allowing such an application at such a belated stage would amount to depriving the defendants from rebutting any presumption arising out of the document so required to be summoned by the petitioner. 12. Having considered all these aspects, if the trial court found the application of the petitioner to be not bonafide, no error can be found with the impugned order passed by the trial court. 13. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. The application is dismissed.