Item- CO 2730 of 2024

19-02-2026

2.

Karim Molla & Ors.

Ct. 19 sg Versus Daulat Ali Molla & Ors.

Mr. Anirban Mitra Mr. Amit Halder Mr. Amit Roy …for the petitioners Mr. Diptomoy Talukder Ms. Mahua Biswas … for the opposite parties Though the matter is appearing under the heading “Extension of Interim Order”, with the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the civil revisional application is taken up for final hearing by treating the same as on the day’s list.

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants in a suit for partition and is directed against an order being No. 109 dated April 22, 2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track 3^rd Court, Basirhat, North 24 Parganas, wrongly described in the certified copy of the order impugned as Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 3^rd Court, Basirhat in Title Appeal No. 14 of 2010.

By the order impugned, the application dated 11^th March, 2024 filed by the opposite parties herein praying for leave to file the certified copy of the RS record of rights stood allowed subject to payment of cost.

The opposite parties filed a suit for partition, being Title Suit No. 24 of 1999. The said suit stood dismissed by a judgment and decree dated 16^th December, 2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basirhat. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge, the opposite parties herein preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 14 of 2010. The opposite parties herein took out an application praying for leave of the Court to file the certified copy of the RS record of rights in respect of RS khatian nos. 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 542 and 624. Such application was allowed by the impugned order.

Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that after conclusion of the argument of the parties in title appeal, the application was filed by the opposite parties praying for leave to produce the RS record of rights. He submits that though the relevant record of rights were in the possession of the opposite parties at the time of trial in the title suit, but the same were not produced on the plea that the recording in the RS record of rights was erroneous. He further submits that the application was filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He further submits that when there is a specific provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for adducing additional evidence at the appellate stage, an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable in the eye of law seeking leave to produce the additional evidence at the appellate stage.

The learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties, submits that through inadvertence, the RS record of rights in respect of the plots in question was not produced at the time of trial. He submits that immediately after it came to the notice of the opposite parties of such defect, steps were taken to produce the same and for such purpose, the application was filed praying for leave to produce the same at the appellate stage. He submits that the learned Judge of the Appellate Court, after considering the materials on record, was of the view that the said documents are necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal and for such reason, the order impugned calls for no interference by this Court. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed.

Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the parties to an appeal to produce additional evidence at the appellate stage whether oral and documentary subject to certain conditions which are enumerated in clauses (a), (aa) and (b) of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order 41. For the purpose of deciding the dispute involved in the said revisional application, it would be beneficial to recapitulate the Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for which the same is extracted hereinafter:

(1) The partie