IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1402 of 2008 RAM LALIT MAHTO & ORS Versus MOSTT.RAM PARI DEVI & ORS ----------- 2. 1.9.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the court below while passing the impugned order has committed neither any material irregularity nor jurisdictional error in refusing to admit Chakbandi Khatiyan and R.S.draft Khatiyan into evidence at the appellate stage in purported exercise of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. From the application filed by the petitioner for this purpose it would be clear that the only plea for bringing these documents by way of additional evidence were taken in the following background : “The aforesaid document could not be filed earlier in the trial court as your petitioner appellant had no knowledge about it as the petitioner appellant was a 4th Grade Eemployee in the Railway Department and all the work during the revisional survey and consolidation were done by Anuplal Mahto who was the elder brother of the appellant. The plaintiff appellant being the Junior member of the family had no knowledge about it and inspite of exercise of due diligence such evidence could not come in the knowledge of petitioner appellant. 2 The aforesaid documents are important to enable the court to pronounce judgment on the vital issue of unity of title and possession of the respective parties over the partition claimed properties.” The Court below has answered the aforementioned contention of the petitioner in the following words : “From perusal of the plaint of the partition suit no. 105/89, it is clear that plaintiff appellant had full knowledge about the chakbandi Khatiyan and new survey khatiyan which was mentioned in para 17 and para 15 of the plaint respectively. In para 15 it has been said that new survey operation has been done and new survey plot number is given in the schedule 1 of the plaint. In para 17 it has been stated that chakbandi operation has been finalized and also notified. The appellant/ plaintiff has been examined as P.W.5 in the court below and in his cross examination in para 18, he has accepted that he has got new khatiyan and he has given plot number in the plaint according to said khatiyan. He has also said that he has filed the khatiyan in this case.” In the opinion of this Court, once the court below in the light of aforementioned findings of fact had found the case so projected by the petitioner for leading of additional evidence at the appellate stage to be absolutely 3 misconceived and rejected the prayer of the petitioner in terms of Order-XLI Rule 27 C.P.C., there would be hardly any scope of this court to interfere with such order under section 115 C.P.C. This application is accordingly dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/