SHAKUNTALABAI Vs. BABAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. Heard finally with the counsel of the parties.

(2.) By this Civil Revision Application, the order rejecting an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code is being challenged. It was at the appellate stage that a city survey map was tried to be introduced on the ground that the said map was also signed by the plaintiff whereby it was tried to be suggested that the plaintiff had agreed to the disputed property being a partitioned property half and half. In fact, there is no explanation whatsoever why this map of city survey department was not introduced at the trial. The original legatee Anuauyabai was very much alive when the trial took place. She could never have failed to mention about the map and surprisingly there is no such map introduced by Anusuyabai. This only suggests that there is no reasonable explanation within the language of order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code as to why the document though of a public nature was not introduced. In that view of the matter, the trial Court was right in rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27. The order is correct. The Civil Revision has no merits and is dismissed with costs.