ORDER :

1. This case is taken up through video conferencing.

2. The present civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 01.04.2021 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 dated 21.02.1986 and came in possession of the same. However, the Forest Department, Government of Jharkhand registered a case bearing No.105 of 2015 on 23.02.2015, 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 dated 31.01.2020. 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 dated 17.03.2021 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 dated 01.04.2021, the court below rejected the said application filed by the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a similarly situated person, namely, Mohini Devi had also filed T.S. No. 3 of 2001 which was allowed in her favour vide judgment dated 29.02.2012 and the appeal filed by the respondents being T.A. No. 8 of 2012 was also dismissed vide judgment dated 13.06.2018. It is further submitted that the petitioner is an old lady and when the trial was going on, she met with an accident and was bedridden. After recovery, she traced out certain material documents which would enable the court below to pronounce effective judgment and as such the court below should have allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Order XLI rule 27 C.P.C. It is also submitted that the court below failed to appreciate that the documents sought to be brought on record as additional evidence were kept on the record of T.A No.8 of 2012 and the petitioner even after due diligence could not trace the same during trial. As soon as she came to know the said fact, she filed Misc. Civil Application no.38 of 2021 under Order XLI rule 27 C.P.C. The said application filed by her should not have been rejected in a routine manner.