The appellate court's discretion in admitting additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 is affirmed, emphasizing that such evidence must be relevant to the case for it to impact the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. This appeal has been filed challenging the part of judgment dated 28^th February, 2020 [decree sealed and signed on 7^th March, 2020] passed by the Additional District Judge-II, Hazaribag in Title Appeal No. 82 of 2012 whereby the appellate court partly allowed the appeal. The trial court judgement is dated 29^th September, 2012 [decree sealed and signed on 12^th October 2012] passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hazaribag in Title Suit No. 147/2000. The learned trial court had decreed the plaintiffs’ right, title, interest over the land of Khata No. 247, Plot No. 2447 & 2452 Area 10 decimals each of village Maskidih, P.S. Barkatha, District Hazaribag described in Schedule-I of the plaint.

2. The Schedule I of the plaint was relating to khata No. 247 plot no. 2447 (area 10 decimal) and khata no. 247 plot no. 2452 (area 10 decimal) and also khata no. 131 plot no. 2810 (area 2 decimal).

3. This second appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 12.06.2023 on the following substantial question of law: -

“Whether the learned first appellate court committed gross illegality by not considering the records of Case No. 524 of 1967 brought on record of the First Appeal along with the petition filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure; in respect of which, though vide order dated 25.02.2019, the learned first appellate court mentioned that appropriate order would be passed in respect of the said petition filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure yet neither any order was passed in respect of the said petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure nor the same was considered; without any rhyme or reason?”

4. Considering the substantial question of law, in this case we are concerned with a part of schedule-I property, that is, khata no. 247 plot no. 2447 (area 10 decimal) and khata no. 247 plot no. 2452 (area 10 decimal).

Arguments of the appellants.

5. At the appellate stage, additional evidence was filed on behalf of the appellants [who were defendant Nos. 1 and 4 in the title suit] to bring on record the certified copy of order-sheet of Case No. 524/1967 of Survey Settlement Office of Hazaribagh. As per order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the appellate court, the certified copy of the order-sheet in Case No. 524/1967 of Survey Settlement Office of Hazaribagh obtained from the record room, Hazaribagh was filed and the learned court specifically recorded that at that stage the document could not be considered, but at the time of final hearing of the appeal and after appreciating the evidence on record if the court reaches to the conclusion that the document mentioned in the petition was required as an additional evidence to pronounce the judgment, then appropriate order will be passed in this regard. The learned counsel has submitted that the judgment passed by the appellate court does not refer to the certified copy of the order-sheet of Case No. 524/1967 of Survey Settlement Office. He has also submitted that the said certified copy which was sought to be adduced as additional evidence has been produced before this court for perusal at the time of admission and now it has been annexed along with the records of this case.

6. He has referred to the aforesaid document (additional evidence) and has submitted that the Case No. 524/1967 of Survey Settlement Office was relating to the case of one Vatan Modi and others and it had nothing to do with the plaintiffs of this case. The learned counsel has submitted that the entire case of the plaintiffs was primarily based on the entry made in the Khatiyan by way of a note which referred to Case No. 524/1967 and accordingly if the order-sheet of Case No. 524/1967 was not concerning the parties of this case, then the very basis of the claim of the plaintiffs would not exist and consequently, the suit itself was fit to be dismissed with regards to the property of Khata No. 247, Plot No. 2447 & 2452 Area 10 decimals each