IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19481 of 2010 1. Yogendra Prasad S/O Daroga Sah R/O Vill.- Belwa, Piparanti, P.O. And P.S.- Ramgarhwa, Distt.- East Champaran 2. Smt. Kalawati Devi W/O Yogendra Prasad R/O Vill.- Belwa, Piparanti, P.O. And P.S.- Ramgarhwa, Distt.- East Champaran Versus 1. Smt. Nesa Devi w/O Late Rikhi Sah And W/O Daroga Sah R/O Vill.- Belwa Piparpanti, P.O. And P.S.- Ramgarhwa, Distt.- East Champaran 2. Daroga Sah S/O Late Brahmdeo Sah R/O Vill.- Belwa Piparpanti, P.O. And P.S.- Ramgarhwa, Distt.- East Champaran 3. Baliram Prasad Yadav S/O Raj Banshi Yadav R/O Vill.- Phulwaria, Tola Piparpanti, P.O. And P.S.- Ramgarhwa, Distt.- East Champaran 4. Shambhu Prasad S/O Deo Nandan Prasad R/O Vill.- Belwa Piparpanti, P.O. And P.S.- Ramgarhwa, Distt.- East Champaran 5. Ali Anwar Katib S/O Not Known Through Sub-Registrar, Motihari, R/O Mohalla, P.O. And P.S.- Motihari, Distt.- East Champaran --------------------- 05/ 26.09.2011 Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar No. 2, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 12.7.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge III, Motihari in Title Appeal No. 41 of 2004, whereby the learned court below has been pleased to allow the plaintiff-respondents herein to adduce additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The suit in question was filed by the plaintiff- respondents seeking declaration of a gift deed dated 27.9.1991 said to be executed by Rikhi Sah, the father of plaintiff-respondent no. 1 in favour of the petitioner no. 2 who happens to be the daughter-in- law, as null and void. 2 The plaintiff-respondents nos. 1 and 2 are parents of petitioner no. 1. The suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed on 19.4.2004. The plaintiff-respondents being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit filed an appeal giving rise to Title Appeal No. 41 of 2004. It is at this stage that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for leading additional evidence by seeking the opinion of handwriting expert so as to compare the signature on the gift deed dated 27.9.1991 with the aid of the gift deed dated 24.8.1983 also executed by Late Rikhi Sah, which was marked exhibit. It is not in dispute that the sale deed register had been summoned on the request made by the plaintiff- respondent by the trial court but at that stage he did not choose to get the signatures compared by the handwriting expert. The prayer of the plaintiff-respondent for leading additional evidence having been allowed by the appellate court, hence the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff-respondent having waived their right to compare the signature even while they had got the concerned sale deed exhibited, they have waived their right to do so and cannot be permitted at the stage of appeal. Learned counsel with reference to judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1965 SC 1008 and A.I.R. 1957 SC 912, submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in no uncertain terms has held that no additional evidence can be led at the stage of appeal for removing the lacuna or for filling up the gaps. It is in these circumstances that the impugned order has been 3 questioned before this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials on record, it is not in doubt that the plaintiff- respondent even after having got the sale deed dated 24.8.1983 exhibited, had failed to make any prayer before the Trial Court for getting the signature on the two sale deeds compared by a handwriting expert. The issue was not raised at the stage of trial rather the plaintiff-respondent at the stage of appeal, filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 seeking to get the signatures compared, as the focal point of the case is whether the signature on the sale deed dated 27.9.1991, by virtue of which, the defendants- petitioners exercised their claim, was indeed executed by the father of the plaintiff-respondent no. 1. Learned court below while examining the issue has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent inter alia on ground that for arriving at a just conclusion and in the interest of justice, the signature on the two sale deeds required opinion of an expert. The provision of Order 41 Rule 27 in no uncertain terms confers power on the learned Courts to permit leading of additional evidence even at the stage of appeal if the same is required in the interest of justice and/or for arriving at a just conclusion on an issue. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners no doubt restrains leading of evidence at the stage of appeal for filling up lacunas but even while holding as such, the 4 appellate court has been permitted to allow the same for doing complete justice and for arriving at a just conclusion. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no infirmity with the order passed by the learned court below. The writ petition is dismissed. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)