(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 19.5.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sawai Madhopur, whereby the learned Judge had rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff, Jumma, filed a suit for permanent injunction before the learned Magistrate against the respondents-defendants Nos. 1 and 2, Eidya and Nuruddin, stating therein that the plaintiff and defendants are real brothers. One plot ad measuring 60 x 60 sq. feet was given to their father by the Government. Later on, the said plot was partitioned between petitioner-plaintiff and the respondents-defendants. The north portion ad measuring 60 x 30 sq. feet, fell in the share of the defendant No.1, Eidya, and South portion ad measuring 60 x 30 sq. feet came in the share of the petitioner-plaintiff. It was alleged that in the year 1967, the defendant No.1 constructed "Kolu posh" house in his portion and the petitioner-plaintiff constructed "pakka" house in his part of the land. The petitioner-plaintiff alleged that the respondents-defendants are trying to grab the southern portion of the land, which falls in his share and they want to construct thereon. Thus, the petitioner-plaintiff prayed that the respondents-defendants be restrained.
(3.) Mr. Mohan Lal Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner wanted to submit two documents, namely Patta of Plot No. 44, which was the disputed property, and a testimony of the respondent, which had been recorded in another civil suit. According to him, the court should be liberal in allowing an application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC. For, any evidence which would enable the court to pronounce the judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the additional evidence should be allowed. In order to buttress this proposition, the learned counsel has relied upon K. Venkataramiah vs. A. Seetharama Reddy & Ors, 1963 AIR(SC) 1526.