BIRBAL YADAV Vs. UMESH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners on the point of admission and I intend to dispose of the instant petition at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners for quashing the order dtd. 11/9/2023 passed in Title Appeal No. 01 of 2020 by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Jamui whereby and whereunder the application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') filed by the petitioners for bringing additional evidence on record has been rejected.

(3.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the petitioners were plaintiffs before the learned trial court and their ancestors had filed Title Suit No. 02 of 2012, which was dismissed and decreed against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the dismissal of title suit, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners. During pendency of the appeal, petitioners filed an application for amendment which was allowed vide order dtd. 22/10/2022 at the cost of Rs.10,000.00. By way of the said amendment, paragraph-3 of the plaint was amended and the fact of sale of 1.76 acre land made through different sale deeds by the father of the defendant/respondent, namely Doman Mahto, was added. Further amendment was made that after sale deed of the plaintiffs, on 19/8/1993, the co-sharer of Doman Mahto, namely Bhatoo Mahto, sold 1.45 acre land of his share to Jaleshwar Yadav and Bhim Yadav which created cloud over the title of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application under Order 41 rule 27 read with Sec. 151 of the Code for bringing on record true copy of the sale deeds dtd. 12/9/1983 and 2/9/1987 as additional evidence. However, learned Additional District Judge-II, Jamui vide the impugned order dtd. 11/9/2023 rejected the petition dtd. 6/6/2023 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 r/w Sec. 151 of the Code.