HUSSAIN ANSARI Vs. GULEJAN BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 26.3.2015 in Title Suit No. 119 of 2002, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner is plaintiff in Title Suit No. 119 of 2002. The suit was filed for declaration of plaintiff's right, title and interest over the land described in the Schedule -B and for a declaration that the defendant is not the daughter of Ismail Mian. The defendant filed written statement accepting partition of Schedule -A property however, the defendant asserted that she was the only daughter of Ismail Mian. The defendant further asserted that his father Ismail Mian had two other wives namely, Majidan Bibi and Sahiman Bibi and they had died issueless. In the pending suit, an application under Order XI Rule 14 CPC was filed on 21.1.2014 for leading secondary evidence insofar as, documents from Sl. Nos. 6 to 9 in application dated 19.7.2013 were concerned.

(2.) It appears that the plaintiff furnished list of certain documents on 19.7.2013, in which documents at Sl. Nos. 1 to 5 were found to be public documents. The trial court accordingly ordered that those documents would be marked as Exhibits. Insofar as, other documents in the list produced on 19.7.2013 are concerned, I find that those were photocopies of notice of Jan Shikayat, letter of C.O., Baghmara, Dhanbad, letter issued by Regional Commissioner, CMPF, Dhanbad and nominee form of Rustam Mian. From the impugned order dated 26.3.2015, it appears that the plaintiff's evidence was closed on 25.2.2013 and after the defendant examined 6 witnesses who were cross examined by the plaintiff, list of additional documents was filed on 19.7.2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the witnesses examined by the plaintiff spoke about the documents mentioned at Sl. Nos. 6 to 9 in application dated 19.7.2013. In the plaint, the plaintiff has not averred about those documents. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to produce the abovementioned additional documentary evidence (Sl. Nos. 6 to 9) which were neither pleaded nor proved when the plaintiff examined his witnesses. I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 26.3.2015, and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.