IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1057 of 2006 PADMAJA DEVI @ KUMARI Versus BHARAT KUMAR MEHTA & ORS ----------- 5 20.11.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court when the lower appellate Court in the impugned order while allowing the prayer of the plaintiff- appellant-opposite party to adducing evidence has recorded that the khatiyan of the land in question would be necessary for just and proper decision of the appeal, this Court sitting in revisional jurisdiction would not find any reason to interfere with the same as this Court cannot find any jurisdictional error in such impugned order. The submission of Mr. S.K. Majumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant-Respondent-petitioner that such prayer for additional evidence should not have been allowed because such a document was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff- opposite party and yet was not filed in course of trial of the suit can hardly be a ground by itself for this court to interfere with the impugned order. On a plain reading of the provision of Order XLI Rule 27(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it would be clear that the power of the appellate Court in such cases has not been shut out in case it comes to a conclusion that any particular document or a witness to be examined would enable it to pronounce the judgment. In other words, Sub-clause-(b) of Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. is not hedged by the circumstance of any time limit and the discretion of the Court is based upon its own reasoning with regard to requirements of - 2 - document or evidence for the just and proper decision of the case. It has to be taken note of three situations under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. are mutually exclusive and are not inter dependent on each other as it would be clear from the expression or used after (a) and (aa) used therein. This Court infact has also looked into the nature of the document taken on record by additional evidence which is nothing else but a khatiyan i.e. record of right which is even otherwise a public document. If such public document has been taken on record and marked as Ext. 5 by appellate Court, definitely at the instance of the plaintiff-opposite party the same cannot be said to be a jurisdictional error specially when the Court records that for finding out the exact location of the suit land, looking into such khatiyan will be necessary. The apprehension expressed by Mr. Majumdar that such entry in Khatiyan has become obsolete and/or does not concern in any manner with the suit land therefore the same on its being taken on record by way of additional evidence would only create confusion in the opinion of this Court is also of premature as that stage is yet to come when the relevance of such additional evidence of Khatiyan would be considered by the appellate Court in the light of the submission of the parties. The further submission of Mr. Majumdar that when the additional evidence of the plaintiff-opposite party by way of khatiyan. has been taken on record and marked as Ext. 5 the same would require evidence in rebuttal has to be considered only by the trial Court - 3 - keeping in view, the spirit of Order XVIII Rule 3. This Court would accordingly direct that an application is filed by the petitioner for admitting any specific documentary evidence in rebuttal of the Khatiyan in question to the Court below will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)