- (1.) Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) Petitioner herein has been impleaded as Respondent No. 7 in Title Appeal No. 33/07 before the Court of Principal District Judge, Bokaro on account of the application moved by the appellant due to passing of the decretal interest of the plaintiff / decree holder / Respondent No. 3 and 4 herein in Title Suit No. 25/96. The learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 29.05.2007 (Annexure-4) decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff / Respondent No. 3 and 4 herein ex-parte and against the defendant no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and on contest against the defendant no. 4, declaring the raiyati right of permanent occupancy in the lands described in Schedule-A and B of the plaint (Suit land). The Divisional Forest Officer and other officials of the State being aggrieved, chose to prefer Title Appeal No. 33/07 from the order of which, present writ application arises.
(3.) There is background of litigation between the parties at the appellate stage which has been copiously referred to in the impugned order as well. Reference may be made to two such orders, one passed by the learned Division Bench in LPA No. 489/10 along with LPA No. 26/11 (State of Jharkhand & others vs. M/s Electrosteel Integrated Limited & others), whereunder the Principal District Judge, Bokaro was directed to decide the Title Appeal No. 33/07 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order i.e. 06.03.2013. The other judgment which requires to be referred to herein, is in relation to the application moved by the present petitioner seeking quashing of the order of the learned Appellate Court whereby appellant was allowed to adduce additional evidence. Learned Single Judge on that occasion vide judgment dated 17.12.2013 passed in WPC No. 6767/13 however was pleased to allow permission to the petitioner Electrosteel Integrated Limited to withdraw the writ petition giving liberty to them to offer rebuttal to the additional evidence.;