IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11011 of 2010 1. Mankuri Devi W/O Late Lakhi Sao 2. Ram Pravesh Diwakar @ Ram Pravesh Sao S/O Late Lakhi Sao 3. Ashok Kumar S/O Late Lakhi Sao, 4. Sanjay Kumar S/O Late Lakhi Sao All R/O Vill. and P.O.- Bhagwanganj, P.S. Bhagwanganj, Distt.- Patna ……… Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners. Versus 1. Mahanth Raghu Nandan Das S/O Ram Pravesh Das 2. Parma Nand Das S/O Raghu Nandan Das 3. Dharma Nand Das S/O Raghu Nandan Das All R/O Vill.,P.O. & P.S. Bhagwanganj, Distt.- Patna …….. Defendants-Respondents-Respondents. For the petitioners : Mr. Maheshwar Prasad, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Bishwanath Chaudhary, Advocate. ----------- 5. 29-09-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the plaintiffs- appellants-petitioners challenging order dated 21.06.2010 (Annexure3) by which Additional District Judge-IX, Patna rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for admitting certain documents as additional evidence in T.A. No. 46 of 2008. 3. The aforesaid title appeal had arisen out of T.S. No. 124/97 (18/2005) filed by the appellants-petitioners for declaration of their title and confirmation of their possession over the suit land measuring 40 decimals of plot No. 570 under Khata No. 228 of Touzi No. 4894 within village Bhagwanganj in the district of Patna on the ground that the suit land was settled by the ex-landlord in favour of the father of the plaintiffs Kriti Sao in the year 1349 fasli (1942 AD) whereafter he remained in possession and thereafter his name was entered in Register-II and for other ancillary reliefs. - 2 - 4. It further transpires that in the said suit, applications were filed by the plaintiffs on 30.06.2006 and 3.07.2006 at the stage when evidence had already been closed for taking into evidence certified copies of sale deeds dated 2.08.1943, 18.12.1950, 2.09.1938, 5.11.1974 as well as certified copy of decree in Rent Suit No. 276 of 1958 and certified copies of Khatian with respect to Khata No. 145, 208, 247 to 250 and copies of Jamabandi No. 104. The said applications were rejected by the trial court as arguments had started. Finally the aforesaid suit was dismissed on contest with cost by Sub- ordinate Judge-12, Patna vide judgment and decree dated 5.4.2008. 5. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners filed T.A. No. 46 of 2008 in which they filed application dated 23.03.2010 under Order 41 Rule 27 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for admitting the aforesaid documents as additional evidence. The defendants- respondents filed rejoinder to the said application on 19.04.2010 whereafter the said application was rejected by Additional District Judge-IX, Patna vide impugned order dated 21.06.2010. 6. From the facts and circumstances of this case as well as from the arguments raised by the parties, it is quite apparent that the plaintiffs as well as the defendants had filed copies of their respective Register-II and the entries made in the two Register-II with respect to the numbers of Plots and khata as well as the area were different and the trial court relying upon the documents adduced by the defendants passed the judgment and decree, which is under challenge in the title - 3 - appeal. In the said circumstances, the documents sought to be produced by the plaintiffs-appellants as additional evidence appears to be necessary to show which of the two copies of the Register-II produced by both the parties contained interpolation or mis- description with regard to plots, khata and area in question. 7. Furthermore, since a title appeal is continuation of suit, a specific provision under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been provided so that the materials which ought to have been admitted but were refused by the trial court could be brought on record for just and proper decision finally settling the entire dispute between the parties. This aspect of the matter has been completely overlooked by the court blow while passing the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 21.06.2010 (Annexure-3) passed in T.A. No. 46 of 2008 is quashed and Additional District Judge-IX, Patna is directed to admit the aforesaid documents produced by the appellants as additional evidence in the said appeal Sujit (S. N. Hussain, J.)