IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.81 of 2007 RAM NARESH SINGH & ORS Versus SHYAM PATI & ORS ----------- 02 07.05.2008 This civil revision has been filed by defendants- respondents-petitioners challenging order dated 21.11.2006 by which the learned Additional District Judge-cum-F.T.C.-V, Aurangabad, rejected their prayer for admitting some documents under the provision of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Title Appeal No. 01 of 2006. This matter arises out of Title Suit No. 195 of 1993 which was filed by opposite party no.1 for partition of his share in the suit properties. However, the said suit was decreed by the learned Munsif, Aurangabad vide judgment and decree dated 06.12.2001 which was challenged by the plaintiff-opposite party 1st set in Title Appeal No. 67 of 2001which is pending before the learned Additional District Judge-cum-F.T.C.-V , Aurangabad. It transpires that during the pendency of the title appeal the defendants-respondents-petitioners filed a petition dated 18.08.2006 under the provision of Order 41 of Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for accepting additional documentary evidence in the title appeal. The plaintiff-appellant-opposite party no.1 filed a rejoinder to the said petition. The said petition has been rejected by the learned court below by its impugned order dated 21.11.2006 and he directed the appeal to be placed for final hearing on 08.01.2007. The learned court below has found that the documents - 2 - which the defendants-respondents-petitioners want to be included as evidence have been created after the judgment and decree was passed by the trial court which shows that it was intentionally created to defeat the appeal and was hit by lis pendence. The learned court below has also found that the said documents appeared to have been collusively prepared only with a view to defeat the interest of the appellant. It was also found that the defendants-respondents had filed Title Suit No. 238 of 2002 against the plaintiff-appellant concerning the aforesaid documents. Hence, the learned court below clearly found that the said petition of the defendants-respondents-petitioners cannot be allowed and was thus dismissed. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)