SADANAND SATUA Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, REP-RESENTED THROUGH THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (EAST) SINGH-BHUM, JAMSHEDPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) CHALLENGE , in this writ application, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 22.2.2007, passed in Title Appeal No. 19 of 2004 by the 2nd Additional District Judge. Jamshedpur, whereby the prayer of the petitioner/appellant for adducing additional evidence in the Appeal, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C., has been rejected.

(3.) ASSAILING the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed by the appellate court without application of judicial mind and without appreciating the explanations offered by the petitioner that in spite of exercising due diligence, he could not gain knowledge of the fact that the Death Certificate produced by the defendant was a fake and forged document and such fact could be ascertained by the plaintiff only after the decree was finally passed by the trial court, and upon verification of the records of the Hospital concerned. Learned counsel argues that the court below ought to have considered that the evidence sought to be produced by the petitioner would not only support the case of the petitioner/plaintiff regarding the genuineness of the Sale Deed on which the plaintiff has based support for the reliefs claimed in the suit but would also have enabled to render substantial justice.