- (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 29.01.2014 in Title Appeal Case No. 18 of 2005, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) The petitioners are defendants in Title Suit No. 408 of 1997. The suit was instituted challenging judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 19 of 1959. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and order dated 08.08.2005, against which the petitioners preferred Tittle Appeal No. 18 of 2005. In the pending appeal the petitioners filed application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. on 03.06.2013 seeking permission to adduce additional evidence by producing certified copy of the plaint of Title Suit No. 19 of 1959. The said application has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.01.2014. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners who are purchasers from Patia Mahatowain, have a subsisting interest in the suit property. Title Suit No. 19 of 1959 was disposed of in terms of a compromise decree however, subsequently, the legal heirs and successors of the said Patia Mahatowain instituted Title Suit No. 408 of 1997. The schedule to Title Suit No. 19 of 1959 would disclose the exact extent of the properties held by the said Patia Mahatowain and therefore, the plaint of Title Suit No. 19 of 1959 is a necessary document for arriving at a just conclusion in the the case.;