SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD,J. - (1.) This writ petition since has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of the India, wherein two orders, order dated 03.05.2017 (Annexure 3) and order dated 04.05.2017 (Annexure 2), passed in Title Appeal No. 33 of 2007 have been challenged, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India only one order ought to have been assailed, as such he is confining this writ petition only with respect to order dated 04.05.2017 whereby prayer for making exhibit, certified copy of notification dated 15th November, 1948 and certified copy of petition dated 26.09.2013 which was filed by the petitioner, has been rejected.
(2.) The brief facts of the case of the petitioner, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, is that the petitioner/decree holder has purchased the suit property from respondent no. 3 and 4 and their mother-Smt. Sumitra Bala Devi (since deceased), who had filed Title Suit No. 25 of 1996 before the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction for declaration of permanent occupancy, raityati rights over Schedule-A and Schedule-B properties, which has been decreed in their favour, against which, appeal has been filed by the District Forest Officer (DFO) and at that stage, the petitioner has made an application for impleadment, which has been allowed and he has been impleaded as party to the aforesaid appeal and now is contesting since after purchase of the suit property from the plaintiff of the Title Suit No. 25 of 1996. The contesting respondent-DFO, Bokaro has filed petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for adducing additional evidence, which has been allowed by the appellate Court, however, it was assailed by the petitioner by filing W.P.(C) No. 6767 of 2013, which was disposed of as withdrawn giving liberty to the petitioner to make prayer for rebuttal of the additional evidence. With the liberty aforesaid, the petitioner vide application dated 15.02.2016 praying for grant of opportunity for rebuttal of the additional documents, which was rejected vide order dated 13.04.2016, thereafter, the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. (C) No. 2340 of 2016, which was allowed vide order dated 05.01.2017 making an observation that if the appellate Court allows opportunity to a party to adduce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, the other party has to be granted opportunity of rebuttal.
(3.) The petitioner in terms of the aforesaid order has filed a petition dated 03.05.2017 praying inter alia to allow the petitioner to adduce additional evidence for rebuttal of the additional evidence adduced by the respondent-DFO since according to the petitioner the notification dated 15.11.1948 which has been marked as Exhibit E/3 has been allowed to be adduced as additional evidence in exercise of power conferred under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC but the said document is not complete one and, therefore, the other document that is the communication dated 11.01.1949 with respect to the notification dated 15.11.1948 and the certified copy of order pertaining to proceeding of Case No. 50/1948, has been sought to be brought on record in rebuttal, but the same has been rejected, hence the present writ petition has been filed.;