SK MOHIUDDIN MIAN Vs. HALIMA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision application has been preferred by the application-petitioners against the order dated 7.9.1996 passed by the District Judge, Gumle, in Title Appeal No. 25 of 1991 whereby the application filed by the opposite party-respondent under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed.

(2.) The suit was filed by the opposite party as plaintiff being Title Suit No. 42 of 1981 for declaration of her title and confirmation of possession in respect of 0.26 acres of land appertaining to Khata No. 155 of Plot No. 3115 along with a Kacha house as per the Schedule in the plaint itself. The plaintiff's case was that the land was sold to her by her father by two registered sale deeds. The same was contested by the petitioner-defendants and the suit was decreed. An appeal was preferred being Title Appeal No. 25 of 1991 by the petitioners as appellants. In the appeal, the opposite party as respondent filed a petition under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for admitting the judgment and decree of an earlier suit being Partition suit No. 126/43 of 1969-74 filed by the plaintiff and a writ for delivery of possession and also the orders passed in the execution case regarding the delivery of possession. The petition was preferred for additional evidence in admitting those documents under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That prayer was objected to from the side of the petitioners-appellants. After hearing both the parties, the learned court passed the impugned order admitting the prayer for additional evidence on payment of cost of Rs. 200/-. The judgments in the earlier partition suit both in the original suit and in the appellate court were admitted being public documents and writ for delivery of possession was asked to be brought in evidence by adducing oral evidence, hence this revision petition.

(3.) Mr. Debi Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioners submitted that such sort of allowance of additional evidence at the belated stage is against the law and all norms. There is nothing to show that such documents were not available to the opposite party when the trial of the case was going on and there was no pleading regarding those documents in the plaint itself. In support of his contention, he has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Koyappathodi M. Ayisha Umma v. State of Kerla and in the case of Syed and Co. and Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. 1995 Supp (4) Supreme Court Cases 422.