DHEERENDRA SEN PANDEY Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE DISTRICT MAHARAJGANJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) The appellants-petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 11.7.2018 passed by the District Judge, Maharajganj in Appeal No.49 of 2017 (Dheerendra Sen PandeyOrs. Vs. Kiran Rani PandeyOrs.), whereby application 16 Ga moved under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. has been turned down. The petitioners also prayed for a direction to allow the petitioners to produce additional evidence in Appeal No.49 of 2017.

(3.) The record in question reflects that the father of the appellant-petitioners had four brothers namely Ram Chandra Pandey, Chandra Bhushan Pandey, Bheemsen Pandey and Devendra Mani Pandey. The entire property belongs to the petitioners ancestors was distributed among the brothers of the father of the petitioners and a deed for family settlement was executed on 9.1.1984. It is claimed that since then as per the family settlement the family members got their possession on their respective shares. One uncle of the petitioner namely Devendra Mani Pandey has constructed a new house over his share and also constructed a boundary wall over rest of his share, which is around his newly constructed house. Devendra Mani Pandey died in the year 1988 and after his death his second wife namely Kiran Rani Pandey has filed suit for permanent injunction being Suit No.986 of 1994 (Smt. Kiran Rani Pandey Vs. Dheerendra Sen PandeyOrs.). During the pendency of the suit Smt. Kiran Rani Pandey died and respondent nos.2 to 6 were substituted on her place in the suit. The petitioners also appeared in the said proceeding and filed their written statement denying the claim set up by the plaintiff. It is claimed that the plaintiff respondents had submitted documentary evidence i.e. order dated 10.07.1996 issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate in a proceeding under Sec. 145 CrPC, 197 between the plaintiff and Sri Ram Chandra Pandey, and a paper issued by the Industrial Unit, Gorakhpur. The petitioner had submitted a family settlement executed on 09.01.1984 as an evidence. It is contended that the order dated 10.7.1996 was set aside in Revision No.44 of 1996 by the Sessions Judge vide order dated 6.11.1997 and the Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed final order on 31.1999 but the plaintiffs have not brought the same in the knowledge of the trial court.