GANESH OJHA Vs. BAIJNATH RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision application is directed against the order dated 5.8.1998 passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Chapra in Title Appeal No. 71 of 1991 by which he rejected the application filed by the appellant -petitioner under Order XLI, rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code for reception of certain documents into evidence. 7

(2.) THE petitioner is the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 18 of 1984 for declaration of his title and possession as well as for confirmation of possession in respect of the suit land bearing plot no. 58, khata no. 104, Touzi No. 3436 in Mouza Basantpur, Police Station Amnour, District Saran. The plaintiff and the defendants led oral as well as documentary evidence before the trial court and the trial court after hearing the parties dismissed the suit in terms of the judgment and decree dated 29.6.91 holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish his title and possession over the suit property. The plaintiff -petitioner then preferred the aforesaid Title Appeal No. 71 of 1991. The petitioner 's case is that during the hearing of the aforementioned appeal it was detected by the counsel for the appellant that the rent receipts granted by the Exlandlord were duly filed in the trial court but the same could not be exhibited. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application under Order XLI, rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the appellate court for allowing the appellant -petitioner to bring those rent receipts into evidence by getting the same exhibited. The said application was opposed by the Respondents -Opposite parties and the court below rejected the prayer of the petitioner by the impugned order.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner firstly submitted that the documents are rent receipts granted by the Ex - landlord which are more than thirty years old and the same could not be exhibited due to inadvertence. Learned counsel further submitted that the rent receipts are essential for pronouncing judgment as the proposed rent receipts are related to the disputed land and specially in view of the finding of the trial court to the effect that no rent receipt prior to the abolition of the Zamindari has been filed by the plaintiff. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the conditions required under Order XLI, rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for reception of the documents as an additional evidence is wanting in the instant case and, therefore, the court below has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner.7