IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.192 of 2008 Madan Kumar Gara, aged about 28 years son of late Jibachwa, resident of Mahalla Bakarganj, P.O. and P.S. Laheriasarai, District Darbhanga. …Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. Versus 1. Ram Kumar Mandal 2. Raj Kumar Mandal sons of late Basudeo Mandal 3. Sushila Devi w/o Basudeo Mandal 4. Asha Kumari D/o Basudeo Mandal wife of Narain Sah, resident of village Dastiya, P.S. Dastiya, District Sitamarhi. 5. Rekha Kumari wife of Nawal Kishore Panjiar, resident of Janakpur, Nepal. 6. Anita Kumari D/o Basudeo Mandal & W/o Arun Choudhary at Nirmali, P.S. Nirmali, District Supaul, near N.A.C. Office. 7. Rakesh Kumar Mandal major son of Basudeo Mandal. O.Ps. 1 to 3 are residents of Mohalla Shahganj, Beuta, P.S. Laheria sarai, District Darbhanga. …..Plaintiffs-Respondents 1st party-Opposite parties 1st set. 8. Parmeshwar Sah son of Genour Sah of Mahalla Bakarganj Town Laheriasarai, District Darbhanga. 9. Md. Muslim Ansari resident of Mohalla Bakerganj, P.S. Town Laheriasarai,Darbhanga. ……Plaintiffs-Respondents 2nd party-Opposite parties 2nd set. 10. Mostt. Ganga Devi wife of late Parmeshwar Gara 11. Mostt. Sabitri Devi wife of late Jabachh Gara 12. Chandrashekhar Gara 13. Lalan Kumar Gara sons of late Jibachh Gara 14. Putul Kumari D/o late Jiback Gara 15. Arjun Kumar Gara major son of late Jabachh Gara, all R/o Mohalla Bakerganj, P.S Laheriasarai, District Darbhanga. …..Defendants-Appellants-Opposite parties 3rd set. For the petitioner :Mr. Subhash Kishore Verma, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 02/ 25.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant- appellant-petitioner challenging order dated 19.11.2007 by which learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.II, Darbhanga, rejected his application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for admitting five documents, namely 2 certified copy of Municipal Khesra, photocopy of Register-II, Rent Receipt up to 2004-2005, photocopy of survey map and original information application with report, as additional evidence in Title Appeal No.07 of 1993 which had arisen out of Title Suit No.39 of 1971. 3. The aforesaid suit bearing Title Suit No.39 of 1971 was filed by plaintiffs-respondents-opposite party 1st set for eviction of the defendants on the ground of default and also for recovery of arrears of rent and for other ancillary reliefs, which was decreed after more than two decades in the year 1993. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of eviction passed by the trial court the defendant filed Title Appeal No.07 of 1993 in which the plaintiffs appeared and contested. 4. It further transpires that after about 12 years of filing of the title appeal the defendant-appellant-petitioner filed an application in the said title appeal under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for accepting the above mentioned five documents as additional evidence, but the said application filed by the petitioner was rejected as not pressed on 08.06.2007 by the learned court of appeal below, but the said order has never been challenged. 5. It transpires that more than three months thereafter on 14.09.2007 another application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure with similar prayer was filed by the defendant-appellant in the title appeal which was contested by the 3 plaintiffs, who filed a rejoinder dated 06.10.2007. The said application was rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 19.11.2007 against which the instant civil revision has been filed. 6. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently opposes the aforesaid order of the learned court below, but from the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the learned court below very carefully considered the entire matter in detail and found that admittedly the documents which the defendant- appellant wanted to be admitted as additional evidence, were available with them from much before the filing of the suit because all those documents were very old and no cogent reason had been assigned for their non-examination at the trial stage. 7. It was the duty of the defendant-appellant to produce those documents at the trial stage itself, but from perusal of his application dated 14.09.2007, it is quite apparent that the defendant-appellant had neither mentioned the dates of the said documents nor he had given the dates on which he got possession of those documents, nor it has been mentioned as to from where he had obtained the said documents. In the said circumstances it is quite apparent that such an application cannot be entertained under the provision of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. It is quite apparent that said suit for eviction 4 continued for 22 long years and title appeal continued for 14 years and only when it was at argument stage the said application had been filed by the defendant-appellant against whom there was specific finding of the trial court that he was tenant of the plaintiffs-respondents and had defaulted in payment of rent and was liable to be evicted. In the said circumstances, the said application cannot be said to be bona fide, rather it is clearly meant to delay the disposal of the title appeal, specially in view of the fact that the execution case which had arisen from the decree of eviction passed by the trial court, has been stayed due to the pendency of the title appeal. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )