IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.329 of 2006 DINA PASHWAN Versus AJAY SHARMA & ORS ----------- 13 29.9.2008 Heard Counsel for the defendant petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the other side despite service of notice. In the opinion of this Court, the grievance of the petitioner as with regard to the impugned order on the ground of non-compliance of the provision of Order 41 Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) seems to be wholly misconceived inasmuch as what has really been directed by the Court below is that a sale deed dated 1.12.1960 produced by the plaintiff-appellant- opposite party has been sought to be taken on record by way of additional evidence in exercise of its power under order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C.. Having so recorded, the Appellate Court has asked the Trial Court to take that document on evidence through any person or in any manner in which the plaintiff appellant would like to exhibit the said sale deed in evidence in accordance with law. In the opinion of this Court, for such a limited purpose no further point was to be defined or recorded by the lower appellate court as is being sought to be canvassed by the Counsel for the petitioner. 2 That being so, this Court would not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order and accordingly, this application is dismissed with a direction to the Trial Court to conclude the recording of evidence within a period of three months and return back such evidence to the Appellate Court whereafter the Appellate Court keeping in view that his civil revision application has remained pending for more than two years only on this issue, will take immediate steps for disposal of the Appeal so that the appeal itself gets disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of evidence recorded by the Trial Court. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)