LATIF KHAN Vs. CIVIL JUDGE, S.D., BULANDSHAHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Faneesh Mishra for the respondents 2 to 8; and perused the record.

(2.) The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Bulandshahar in Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1977, arising out of Original Suit No.166 of 1972, by which petitioners' application 101 Ga 2, under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C., to bring additional evidence on record , has been rejected.

(3.) A perusal of the record would reveal that there were two suits inter se the parties. One was Original Suit No. 166 of 1972 for cancellation of a saledeed dated 30.10.1969 and the other suit was Original Suit No. 574 of 1969 which related to grant of permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the suit property. The Original Suit No. 574 of 1969 stood dismissed by both the courts below and thereafter Second Appeal No. 2873 of 1978 was also dismissed by order dated 05.02.2010. The proceedings of Original Suit No. 166 of 1972 travelled up to this Court in the form of Second Appeal No. 3150 of 1978 which came to be decided by judgment and decree dated 04.03.2013 whereby the appellate court decree was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the lower appellate court. It appears that the lower appellate court had placed complete reliance on revenue entries and therefore in the second appeal a question was framed as to whether revenue entries could determine title. This Court in Second Appeal No. 3150 of 1978 held that revenue entry could be a record relating to possession but it may not be construed as a document of title and therefore the appellate court was required to decide the matter afresh.