KARTIK SINGH MUNDA Vs. LAKHIMANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant civil misc. petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dtd. 13/3/2020 passed by learned AJC-XV, Ranchi in Civil Appeal No. 103 of 2018 arising out of judgment dtd. 30/7/2018 and decree dtd. 14/8/2018 passed in Title Suit No. 90 of 2014 whereby and where under, the appellate court has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Order XLI Rule 27(aa) and (b) read with Sec. 151 of C.P.C. for production of certified copy of plaint and order sheet of one earlier suit earlier filed by respondent no. 1 against the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner Kartik Singh Munda is the defendant no.1in earlier Title Suit No. 90 of 2014 filed by Plaintiff Lakhimani Devi (OP no.1) for cancellation of adoption deed which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Against the dismissal of the suit, the petitioner preferred Civil Appeal No. 103 of 2018 in which the petition for adducing additional evidence was filed which has been rejected against which the present petition has been filed.

(3.) The petitioner sought to adduce into evidence the certified copy of the plaint of earlier Title Suit No. 104 of 2012 filed by the plaintiff-opposite party no. 1 for the same cause of action was dismissed for non-prosecution and had attained finality. These facts had been specifically pleaded in para-21 of the written statement. It was for this reason that the petitioner/appellant filed the petition under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. for adducing into evidence the plaint of the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff which has been rejected. Further, the earlier plaint was also required to bring inconsistency and contradiction in the averment made in both the suits ie TS104/12 and TS 90/12. Reliance has been placed on Jayaramdas and Sons v. Mirza Rafatullah Baig, (2004) 10 SCC 507 : 9. As already pointed out, both the sets of documents are certified copies of public documents. The appellants would not ordinarily suspect or doubt the documents where the certified copies of public documents were secured from the public officer having the custody of such public documents. It is only when it came to their knowledge that the certified copies were at variance with the originals or were not complete copies that they thought of securing another set of certified copies and then seeking leave of the court for producing the certified copies obtained by them as an additional evidence in the appellate court. The case of the appellants for production of additional evidence falls within clause (aa) of sub-rule (1), abovesaid.