SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J - (1.) This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder order dated 25.08.2017 passed in Title Appeal No.19 of 2016 has been challenged by which petition filed under the provision of Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. read with Section 151 of C.P.C. has been rejected which was filed for allowing the petitioner to come with the additional evidence.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that a suit for specific performance of contract for re-convey was filed being Title Suit No.127 of 2007 for performing the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale of the suit property in question, the same having been decreed in favour of the respondent, whereas title appeal has been filed being Title Appeal No.19 of 2016, a petition under Order 41 Rule 27 was filed for allowing the petitioner to led additional evidence, since the document i.e. the original copy of agreement for sale no.12064 dated 12.12.2012, since according to the petitioner the said document was on record but could not have been marked by the trial Court. The trial Court having considered the scope of provision of Order 41 rule 27 of the C.P.C. has passed the order by rejecting it come to the finding that the condition stipulated under the provision of Order 41 Rule 27, is not attracted.
(3.) Mr. Prakash Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order suffers from infirmity for the reason that the trial Court has not appreciated the fact that the sale no.12064 dated 12.12.2012 is the relevant document for just and proper adjudication of the issue, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law.;