MANORMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is taken up through video conferencing.

(2.) The present civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 1/4/2021 passed by the District Judge-VI, Chatra in Misc. Civil Application No.38 of 2021 filed by the petitioner under Order XLI rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby the learned court below has rejected the said application filed in Civil Appeal No.10 of 2020 for allowing her to adduce additional evidence and to mark some of the documents as exhibits, which were already on record before the court below, but could not be marked as exhibits due to inadvertence and by oversight.

(3.) The factual background of the case, as stated in the C.M.P., is that the land situated at village-Nagwan, Pargana- Ahuri, P.S Chatra, Thana No.182, District-Hazaribagh (now Chatra) under C.S Khata No. 1, Plot No. 1144, measuring an area of 22.80 acres and plot No. 1146, measuring an area of 37 acres was recorded as Gairmazurwa Khas land of ex. Landlord-Kunwar Rameshwar Narayan Singh. Out of the said land, 1 acre land appertaining to Plot no.1144 and 4 acres of land appertaining to plot no.1146 was settled to one Vindhyavasini Devi on 16/11/1941 by the ex. landlord, who came in possession of the same and paid rent to the landlord till vesting of Zamindari. After vesting of Zamindari, jamabandi was opened in her name and she also paid rent to the Government for the year 1953-54 and 1954-55. The petitioner purchased 1 acre of land under Touzi No. 28, Khata No. 1, Plot no. 1146 from the settlee by virtue of a registered sale deed dtd. 21/2/1986 and came in possession of the same. However, the Forest Department, Government of Jharkhand registered a case bearing No.105 of 2015 on 23/2/2015, alleging that the petitioner was making construction over the forest land and to that effect U.C. case No.155 of 2014 was also registered against the petitioner. The petitioner filed Original Suit No.92 of 2017 for declaration of her right, title, interest and possession upon the suit property and to restrain the defendants from interfering with her title and possession over the suit land. However, the said suit was dismissed by the trial court vide order dtd. 31/1/2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal being Civil Appeal No.10 of 2020. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner filed Misc. Civil Application No.38 of 2021 dtd. 17/3/2021 under Order XLI rule 27 CPC to mark some documents as exhibit which were already on record. The petitioner also made another prayer for adducing additional evidence claiming that those documents could not be obtained by the petitioner during trial in spite of her due diligence. However, vide impugned order dtd. 1/4/2021, the court below rejected the said application filed by the petitioner.