IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9168 of 2011 ====================================================== Rajbanshi Singh, S/o Late Bishundeyal Mahto, R/o Village - Ahirauli, P.O - Semra Bazar , P.S - Gopalpur , District - Gopalganj .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Paldhari Singh, Mangal Singh, R/o Village - Ahirauli , P.O - Semar Bazar, P.S - Gopalpur , District - Gopalganj 3. Laldhari Singh, S/o Mangal Singh, R/o Village - Ahirauli , P.O - Semar Bazar , P.S - Gopalpur , District - Gopalganj 4. Chandan Singh, R/o Lalitnarayan Singh, R/o Village - Ahirauli , P.O - Semar Bazar , P.S - Gopalpur , District – Gopalganj 5. Rahiram Singh, S/o Ghurbhari Singh, R/o Village - Ahirauli , P.O - Semar Bazar , P.S - Gopalpur , District - Gopalganj 6. Baleshwar Singh, S/o Ghurbhari Singh, R/o Village - Ahirauli , P.O - Semar Bazar , P.S - Gopalpur , District – Gopalganj .... .... Respondents (Defendants) ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harendra Prasad, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amish Kumar, AC to SC 24. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 4 21-12-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 3rd March 2011 made by the Fast Track Court V, Gopalganj in Title Appeal No. 17 of 2009, the plaintiff-appellant has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 245 of 2005 by the court of Munsif, Gopalganj, the plaintiff-writ petitioner has preferred Title Appeal No. 17 of 2009 in the Fast Track Court V, Gopalganj. Pending the appeal, the appellant-plaintiff produced certain documentary Patna High Court CWJC No.9168 of 2011 (4) dt.21-12-2011 2 / 2 2 evidence which, according to the appellant, were vital for the decision of the suit and that the said documents were not brought on the record by the concerned advocate. It was the error on the part of the concerned advocate in not producing the said documents. The court below has rejected the application. Therefore, this petition. Production of additional evidence pending the appeal is governed by Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure categorically debars production of additional evidence by any party in the appeal except in the circumstances mentioned in Clauses (a), (aa) & (b) thereof. Undoubtedly, the case of the appellant-writ petitioner does not fall in any of the aforesaid Clauses (a), (aa) or (b). In my view, the court below has rightly rejected the application. Petition is dismissed in limine. Dilip. (R.M. Doshit, CJ)