ORDER :

1. The present case is taken up through video conferencing.

2. The present Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.06.2021 passed by the District Judge-VIII, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2019 whereby the petitions dated 26.02.2021 and 01.03.2021 both filed by the petitioners under Order XLI rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC making payer to pass an order for taking certain documents as additional evidence as well as petition dated 01.03.2021 filed under Order VI rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment of plaint at appellate stage have been dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- each i.e Rs.15,000/-.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs/ petitioners/their ancestors had preferred a suit being T.S. No. 150 of 2006 for declaration of their right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the land situated at Mouza- Chhota Pichhari, Mauza No. 85, P.S - Barwadda, District -Dhanbad under Khata No. 123, Plot No. 1226 measuring an area of 1 acre, plot No. 1206 measuring an area of 68 decimals and plot No. 1605 measuring an area 33 decimals (in total 2.01 acres) (hereinafter to be referred as “the said land”). It was further prayed by them for a decree of declaration that the settlement made by the respondent-State in favour of the private respondents/their ancestors for the said land is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs/petitioners and also for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants/respondents, their men, agents, staff and officials from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the said land and also not to give delivery of possession of the same to the private respondents/their ancestors. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners/their ancestors vide judgment dated 15.02.2019 (decree prepared on 23.02.2019) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)-I, Dhanbad. Aggrieved with the said order, the private respondents preferred appeal being Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2019 and during the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioners preferred petitions dated 26.02.2021 and 01.03.2021 both under Order XLI rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC seeking the permission of the court to bring on record certain documents as additional evidence at the appellate stage. The petitioners also preferred a petition under Order VI rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC dated 01.03.2021 praying certain amendments in the plaint. However, all the three petitions were rejected by the learned Additional District Judge-VIII, Dhanbad vide a common order dated 07.06.2021 and cost of Rs.5000/- each i.e total Rs.15,000/- was imposed upon them to be paid to the private respondents/appellants.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned court below failed to appreciate that the proposed amendments as well as the documents sought to be adduced at the appellate stage were necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. It is also submitted that Khata No. 123 is actually recorded in Khewat No. 8 and not in Khewat No. 1/2 which happened due to inadvertence and as such the amendment of the plaint as sought by the petitioners was essential for the effective adjudication of the appeal. The learned court below also failed to construe the provisions of section 107(2) CPC and did not exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. It is further submitted that from the averments made in the plaint as well as in the written statement of defendants and the evidence on record, it would appear that there is no dispute that the predecessors of the plaintiffs/petitioners were the tenure holders and Gandhori Choudhary (grandfather of the petitioners) was the landlord who had submitted the return/statement of the land in his khas possession at the time of vesting of Zamindari interest under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The learned court below further failed to appreci