APARESH KUMAR SINGH,J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner, respondent no.1 and the State.
(2.) Learned appellate court has, by the impugned order dated 15th February 2016 passed in Title Appeal No.56 of 2009, rejected the application of the defendant/appellant/petitioner herein to adduce additional evidence in the nature of two sale deeds bearing no.3693 and 482 dated 19th June 1980 and 30th January 1980 at the appellate stage. Petitioner, being aggrieved, has assailed the same. The suit was brought by the respondent no.1-Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. for declaration of title of the plaintiff and performa defendant State of Bihar over the land described in Schedule-A and B of the plaintiff and for recovery of possession of land mentioned in Schedule-A; for confirmation of possession of land in Schedule-B of the plaint. It also sought permanent injunction restraining the principal defendants/appellant/petitioner herein from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over Schedule-B land and making any construction over the same. Title Suit No. 123/1987 was decreed in favour of the plaintiff by judgment dated 14th October 2009 (Annexure-1) on contest.
(3.) Petitioner, being aggrieved, preferred Title Appeal No. 56 of 2009 before the appellate court of District Judge, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur. During the appellate proceeding, these two sale deeds which relate to the year 1980 stated to be instrument conveying title of Plot no.401 and 416 of Mauza Sonari by the heirs of recorded tenant Makar Manjhi were being sought to be brought on record as additional evidence. Reference is made to paragraph-3 of the plaint and paragraph-19 of the written statement by the petitioner in support of the contention that the pleadings relating to plot in question being originally in the name of Makar Manjhi the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, are already on record in the suit before the learned trial court. Petitioner, however, could not adduce these two sale deeds despite exercise of due diligence at the time of trial. He had however adduced two other sale deeds of the year 1978 in respect of the same plots before the learned trial court. The additional evidences were therefore being sought to be produced at the appellate stage under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 specifically Rule 1(aa) of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned appellate court has committed error in refusing the same.;