IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.956 of 2007 CHITRANJAN SINGH, SON OF LATE TULSHI PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MOHINATHPUR, P.S. KORHA, DISTRICT-KATIHAR. (DEFENDANT-APPELLANT IN COURT BELOW). ……………………………………………………….PETITIONER. Versus 1. MOST.KAMA DEVI @ RAJIA, WIFE OF LATE TULSHI PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLLAGE- MOHINATHPUR, P.S. KORHA, DISTRICT-KATIHAR. (PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT IN COURT BELOW). ……………………………………OPPOSITE PARTY-1ST SET. 2. ARUN KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE TULSHI PRASAD SINGH @ SINHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOHINATHPUR, P.S. KORHA, DISTRICT-KATIHAR. ………….DEFENDANT/OPPOSITE PARTY……2ND SET. 3. RAJENDRA SINGH, SON OF CHANOHA NARAYAN PRASAD SINGH. 4. MUNNA KUMAR SINGH, SON OF RAJENDRA SINGH. 5. GUNA KUMARI. 6. SMT. LALITA DEVI. 7. SMT. MEETA DEVI. ALL SONS AND DAUGHTER OF RAJENDRA SINGH. OPPOSITE PARTY NO.3 TO 7 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SISIYA, P.S. KORHA, DISTRICT-KATIHAR. 8. SHANTI DEVI, WIFE OF UPENDRA MEHTA, DAUGHTER OF LATE TULSHI PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SOHRA, P.S. KRITYANAND NAGAR, DISTRICT- PURNEA. ………………......DEFENDANT/OPPOSITE PARTY…3RD SET. ……………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha, Advocate. ------------ 2. 22.12.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 26.3.2007 2 passed by the Fast Track Court-I, Katihar, in Miscellaneous Appeal No.9/06, whereby the prayer for admitting the certified copy of the affidavit of his father as additional evidence, has been rejected Learned counsel submitted that unfortunately, the said certified copy of the affidavit, original of which was available in Title Suit No.42/96, could not be procured and filed at the time of leading evidence in Succession Case No.14/97 and, thus, in the interest of justice, the court concerned, should have allowed the same to be taken as additional evidence in the appeal. The court below has rejected the prayer on the ground that as per the provisions under Order XLI Rule 27 (1) (aa) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the party seeking to produce additional evidence, must establish that despite due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. However, the petitioner failed to establish the same. Learned counsel could not establish the same even before this Court. I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by 3 the court below in passing the impugned order. This Civil Revision is, accordingly, dismissed. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)