Shivakant Prasad, J. - (1.) The instant appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 12thMay, 2011 passed by the learned 15th Court of Additional District Judge atAlipore in Title Appeal No. 254 of 2010 confirming the judgement and decree dated 24th June, 2009 passed by the learned 9th Court,Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore in Title Suit No. 50 of 2008 inter alia on the groundsthe learned Appellate Court below was not justified in rejecting the application under order 41 rule 27 CPC merely on the ground that the documents were not produced earlier and thereby erred in law in not considering the fact that the defendants did not adduce any evidence as the defendant no. 2 was hospitalised due to operation and the advocate was also absent due to his operation. It is submitted that the learned Court below ought to have considered the fact that the defendants had refused to pay rent to the respondent because no document was shown by him in support of the ownership in respect of the suit property.
(2.) Accordingly, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned judgement and the decree as bad in law and in fact.
(3.) This Court is called upon to decide this appeal on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether in passing the impugned order the learned appellate court below appreciated the true scope, purport and ambit of order 41 rule 27(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure? 2. Whether the lower appellate court could have refused the prayer for production of additional document/evidence in the form of rent receipts in proceedings in which the question raised was whether the defendants licensee or tenant?;