- (1.) HEARD .
(2.) CHALLENGE , in this writ application, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 22.2.2007, passed in Title Appeal No. 19 of 2004 by the 2nd Additional District Judge. Jamshedpur, whereby the prayer of the petitioner/appellant for adducing additional evidence in the Appeal, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C., has been rejected. Facts of the petitioner's case, stated briefly, are as follows: - The petitioner/plaintiff filed a Title Suit vide Title Suit No. 13 of 2000 before the Court of Munsif at Ghatshila for a decree for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit property, besides confirmation of possession and alternatively, for recovery of possession. His claim was based primarily on a Sale Deed purportedly executed in his favour by one Badal Dolai and which was claimed to have been registered on 3.6.1998 before the Sub -Registrar, Jamshedpur. The Respondent No. 2 being the defendant No.1, had contested the claim of the plaintiff and disputed the Sale Deed as not being a genuine and bona fide document, on the ground that the purported executant Badal Dolai had died on 7.1.1986 and hence was not alive to execute any such document on 3.6.1998. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court had framed several issues. The relevant issue for the purpose of adjudication of the present case is the Issue No. (g) as to whether the plaintiff's alleged Sale Deed is valid, legal and binding. While the plaintiff in support of his case had adduced the Sale Deed dated3.6.1998 in evidence, the defendant in his turn, had produced alongwith his written statements, the Death Certificate, issued by the Sub -Registrar of Birth and Death, Dist -Midnapur, West Bengal to the effect that the said Badal Dolai, S/o late Kartick Dolai, Male, aged about 68 years, a resident of Village Taradiha, P.O. -Petbind, Dist. -Midnapore, West Bengal, had died on 7.11.1986 at Tapsia P.H.C. Relying upon the Death Certificate and upon considering the fact that the plaintiff did not produce any evidence to rebut the presumption of genuineness of the Certificate, the trial court recorded its finding on the aforesaid issue in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff and on this ground, the suit was dismissed. Against the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, the plaintiff/petitioner filed his appeal before the First Appellate Court. In the appeal, the petitioner/appellant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C., praying for allowing him to adduce further additional evidence, and for issuance of summons to the concerned authorities of the Tapsiya P.H.C. for production of the relevant Registers, on the ground that the appellant had subsequently detected upon his own investigation that the Death Certificate produced and relied upon by the defendant, was in fact a forged and fake document and that on the basis of such document, the defendant had misled the trial court. The appellants' prayer for allowing him to adduce evidence was hotly contested by the defendant/Respondent. The appellate Court upon hearing the parties and after considering the materials available on record, rejected the appellant's prayer on the ground that the appellant has not made out any ground within the purview of Order 41 Rule 27 of the C. P .C. for adducing additional evidence at the appellate stage.
(3.) ASSAILING the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed by the appellate court without application of judicial mind and without appreciating the explanations offered by the petitioner that in spite of exercising due diligence, he could not gain knowledge of the fact that the Death Certificate produced by the defendant was a fake and forged document and such fact could be ascertained by the plaintiff only after the decree was finally passed by the trial court, and upon verification of the records of the Hospital concerned. Learned counsel argues that the court below ought to have considered that the evidence sought to be produced by the petitioner would not only support the case of the petitioner/plaintiff regarding the genuineness of the Sale Deed on which the plaintiff has based support for the reliefs claimed in the suit but would also have enabled to render substantial justice.;