- (1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 19.5.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sawai Madhopur, whereby the learned Judge had rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff, Jumma, filed a suit for permanent injunction before the learned Magistrate against the respondents-defendants Nos. 1 and 2, Eidya and Nuruddin, stating therein that the plaintiff and defendants are real brothers. One plot ad measuring 60 x 60 sq. feet was given to their father by the Government. Later on, the said plot was partitioned between petitioner-plaintiff and the respondents-defendants. The north portion ad measuring 60 x 30 sq. feet, fell in the share of the defendant No.1, Eidya, and South portion ad measuring 60 x 30 sq. feet came in the share of the petitioner-plaintiff. It was alleged that in the year 1967, the defendant No.1 constructed "Kolu posh" house in his portion and the petitioner-plaintiff constructed "pakka" house in his part of the land. The petitioner-plaintiff alleged that the respondents-defendants are trying to grab the southern portion of the land, which falls in his share and they want to construct thereon. Thus, the petitioner-plaintiff prayed that the respondents-defendants be restrained. The respondents submitted their joint written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. According to the them, the said plot was not ancestral property, rather it was purchased by the respondent-defendant No.1 by his own money. The respondents claimed that the entire plot is in their possession since 1956, and the petitioner never resided in the said plot. After hearing both the parties, by judgment and decree dated 4.11.2008, the learned trial court dismissed the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 4.11.2008, the petitioner filed a Civil First Appeal before the learned Judge, which was later on transferred to Addl. District Judge, Sawai Madhopur. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking on record a photocopy of the certified copy of the statement of the defendant Eidya which was given in another suit, namely Civil Suit No. 155/96 [Eidya vs. Jumma]. Later on, the petitioner also filed another application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking on record the certified copy of the "Patta" of the disputed plot No.44, stating that the said "Patta" was not in his possession, hence, he could not file the same in the trial court. It came in his possession on 15.8.2013. The learned Judge, by order dated 19.5.2014, dismissed both the applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Mohan Lal Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner wanted to submit two documents, namely Patta of Plot No. 44, which was the disputed property, and a testimony of the respondent, which had been recorded in another civil suit. According to him, the court should be liberal in allowing an application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC. For, any evidence which would enable the court to pronounce the judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the additional evidence should be allowed. In order to buttress this proposition, the learned counsel has relied upon K. Venkataramiah vs. A. Seetharama Reddy & Ors, 1963 AIR(SC) 1526.;