IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
FA No.101 of 2007
JAGRANO KUNWAR & ORS
Versus
SMT.NIRMALA DEVI & ORS
-----------
24. 13.09.2010 Heard learned counsels for the parties on
Interlocutory Application No.2064 of 2010.
This application has been filed under Order 41
Rule 27 C.P.C. praying therein to produce as additional
evidence the certified copy of the sale deed dated
9.6.1965 executed by original plaintiff Indrasna Kunwar
in favour of Sheovachan Chaudhary, Ramvachan
Chaudhary and Sheopujan Chaudhary and further to
call for the original register of registration office at Ara,
Bhojpur.
It appears that in the court below during the
pendency of the suit, an application was filed under
Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. which was rejected. In the
court below also an application was filed for taking this
sale deed as evidence in the case. The said application
was rejected by the court below on the ground that the
application for taking the sale deed into evidence has
been filed at belated stage. Thereafter the review
application was filed which was also rejected.
Subsequently another application was filed for taking
sale deed as evidence which was again rejected.
2
Thereafter civil revision application was filed before this
court which was dismissed for default and then M.J.C.
application was filed for restoration of civil revision but
during the pendency of the restoration application the
suit itself was disposed of and the defendants have filed
this appeal against the judgment and decree passed in
favour of plaintiffs-respondents decreeing the plaintiffs-
respondents’ suit.
In this appeal, a fresh application under Order
41 Rule 27 C.P.C. has been filed. Learned counsel
appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned
court below has wrongly rejected the prayer during the
pendency of the suit and refused to take the sale deed
in evidence and, therefore, it is one of the grounds for
taking the sale deed as additional evidence before the
appellate court. So far this ground is concerned, in my
opinion the appellant can raise this ground according to
the provisions as contained under Section 105 of Code
of Civil Procedure before this court and show that the
order by which the court below refused to take sale
deed in evidence is illegal and is liable to be set aside.
Since this ground is available to the appellant in the
appeal itself, no separate order is necessary on the
application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule
27 C.P.C. The appellant, if so advised, move this
application at the time of final hearing of this appeal.
3
In such view of the matter this interlocutory
application may be tagged with the appeal so it may be
considered at the time of final hearing of this appeal.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)
S.S.