Additional evidence cannot be admitted in appellate proceedings unless it is relevant to the pleadings and cannot be used to fill gaps in a party's case.

ORDER :

(Subhash Chand, J.)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the

2. The instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been preferred on behalf opposite parties are present. of the petitioners dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the learned District Judge-III, Lohardaga in M.C.A. No.09 of 2020 only to the extent whereby the application of the applicant under Order XLI Rule 27 of 29.11.2017 was allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he has filed the original suit for declaration of right, title and interest in the property in suit and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to make interference in the possession of the very suit, which was decreed by the learned Trial Court and in that suit, the plaintiff had averred his rights in the property in suit on the basis of sale deed, which had been executed in his favour in the year 1973 by the mother of the defendant, namely, Ramwati Devi and dissatisfied with the decree passed in Title Suit No.31 of 2015, the appeal was preferred on behalf of the respondent, which is pending now. During pendency of the very appeal, the defendants-appellants got the death certificate of their mother and that certificate was sought to be adduced by way of an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. In that appeal, an objection as raised on behalf of the respondents of the appeal before the appellate court but the learned Appellate court has allowed the application vide order dated 27.02.2023, which is based on adverse finding.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and contended that the learned Trial Court while taking this document on record has given the finding that the evidentiary value of the document was not to be considered at this stage and the document, which was sought to be adduced on record was the public document. As such, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court bears no infirmity.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

6. The copy of plaint is Annexure-1 of this C.M.P. From very perusal of the same, it is found that the plaintiff Motilal Agrawal, the petitioner herein had instituted the suit against Ram Babu Sharma & Ors. with these averments that the property as shown was in ownership and possession of Ramwati Devi, who had executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff Motilal Agarwal and the proforma defendant No.7-Dr. Sachidanand Agarwal on 05.03.1973 and on the basis of the sale deed, the plaintiffs and the proforma defendant No.7 both were the owner and also in possession of the same. Subsequently, the mutual partition also took place between the plaintiff Motilal Agarwal and the proforma defendant No.7-Dr. Sachidanand Agarwal in regard to the property in suit. Thereafter, the defendant Nos.1 to 6, who were sons of Ramwati Devi who were claiming to be the sons and legal heirs of Ramwati Devi had begun to keep their furnitures in that very land because the boundary wall of the same was not erected from one side and taking the advantage of the same, they began to keep the furniture therein. Subsequently, they began to claim their right, title and interest thereon and when the plaintiff wanted to raise the construction thereon, the same was obstructed by the defendant, hence there was no way out except to file this suit, the copy of this plaint is made Annexure-1 to this C.M.P.

7. On behalf of the defendants, the written statement was filed, which is Annexure-2 to this C.M.P. From very perusal of this written statement of the defendant Nos.1 to 6, wherein it is evident that in para 7, it has been specifically stated that Ramwati Devi wife of Ram Prasad Sharma, the mother of defendant Nos.4 and 6 had the absolute right, title and possession over the land in question under Khata No.85, Plot No.1774/2539 corresponding to