SUPA ORAON Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is one of the appellants in Title Appeal No. 01 of 2014, is aggrieved of order dated 19.12.2016 by which the application for adducing Zamindari rent receipts as additional evidence has been declined.

(2.) Partition Suit No. 11 of 2007 was instituted by Supa Oraon and Manu Oraon for a preliminary decree for partition to the extent of V2 share for the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties. The suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 21.12013. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No. 01 of 2014. In the pending appeal an application dated 08.04.2016 for exhibiting Zamindari rent receipts was filed by the appellants. This application has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 19.12016.

(3.) Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C mandates that parties shall not be permitted to lead additional evidence, oral or documentary, at the appellate stage. This statutory prohibition has, however, exceptions carved out under Order 41, Rule 27(a), (aa) and (b) read with subrule 2 to Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. During pendency of the partition suit the plaintiffs filed copies of agreement dated 30.10.1965, sale patta dated 16.12.1941, Malgujari rent receipts etc. In their application seeking leave of the appellate court for exhibiting Zamindari rent receipts, except stating that due to bonafide mistake these rent receipts could not be adduced in evidence, the appellants have not disclosed any other reason why these documents could not be produced in the partition suit. In my opinion, when it is found that the plaintiffs have led documentary evidence in the partition suit, not filing of Zamindari rent receipts cannot be said to be a bonafide mistake. It is not a case pleaded by the petitioner that these rent receipts were not in his possession or in spite of due diligence these documents could not be produced in Partition Suit No. 11 of 2007.