ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 24.07.2017 passed by the District Judge-VII, Giridih in T.A No.5 of 2015, whereby the petition filed by the plaintiff/appellant/petitioner under Order XLI rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated 21.01.2016 for adducing additional evidence has been rejected.

2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that one Shanti Devi, wife of Misri Lal Swarnkar (respondent no.4 herein) filed Eviction Suit No.15 of 1996 against the father-in-law of the petitioner, namely, Bhuneshwar Prasad for evicting him from the suit land without impleading the petitioner and his other family members as parties in the said eviction suit. The said eviction suit was decided in favour of Shanti Devi vide judgment dated 31.08.2001 and the decree dated 13.09.2001. Thereafter, Shanti Devi filed an execution case being Execution Case No.02 of 2002. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid execution case and the eviction suit. Thereafter, she filed Title Suit No.05 of 2003 challenging the title of Shanti Devi over the suit land and arrayed Shanti Devi, Bhuneshwar Prasad and Misri Lal Swarnkar as parties-defendants in the same. She specifically stated in the said suit that she had purchased the suit property measuring an area one acre out of 29.64 acres appertaining to Khata No. 64, plot no. 810, Thana No. 50, situated at village Gadi Kala, Tola Suiyatand, P.S. Bengabad, District Giridih from one Babulal Mishra, son of Late Mohar Mishra (legal heir of the recorded tenant, namely, Mani Lal Mishra) by virtue of registered sale deed no.11196 dated 09.11.1993. The land in question stands recorded as Bakast land of Mani Lal Mishra in the survey Khatian. The defendants- Shanti Devi and Misri Lal Swarnkar appeared in the suit and filed their written statement, stating inter alia that the vendor of the petitioner, namely, Babulal Mishra had no right, title, interest or possession with respect to the said land and as such he was not entitled to execute any deed of transfer of the same in favour of any person including sale deed no.11196 dated 09.11.1993 allegedly executed in favour of the petitioner. The said suit was finally dismissed by the learned Munsif, Giridih vide judgment dated 27.02.2015 and decree dated 12.03.2015. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.5 of 2015 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Giridih, which is now pending in the court of the District Judge, VII, Giridih. During pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner filed a petition on 21.1.2016 under Order XLI rule 27 of CPC for adducing additional evidence, however, the said petition was dismissed by the court below vide impugned order dated 24.07.2017. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below has failed to consider that the petitioner could not produce the concerned documents in spite of due diligence as those were not within her knowledge for the reason that she was not a party to that proceeding in which those documents were concerned. It is only P.W.2 i.e. vendor of the petitioner, who disclosed about those documents and, thereafter, the petitioner came to know about the existence of the same. It is also submitted that the concerned documents were not in possession of the petitioner, hence she could not produce the same during trial. The documents sought to be produced by the petitioner before the court below is necessary for the just decision of the case. A title suit being T.S. No.26 of 2007 was filed by Babulal Mishra against Malti Devi and others, wherein the vendors of the respondents, namely, Raj Kumar Mishra and Kamdeo Mishra filed written statement, accepting the fact that the suit property of T.S No. 5 of 2003 was exclusively allotted in the share of Mohar Prasad Mishra (father of Babulal Mishra). The said written statement wa