IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.420 of 2009 ---- Sita Ram Singh, son of Late Natho Singh, Resident of Village-Daulachak, P.S.-Kashichak, District-Nawadah. -- Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. Versus 1. Shanti Devi wife of Late Bhagirath Singh, Resident of village-Daulachak, P.S. Kashichak, District- Nawadah. -- Respondent-Opposite Party. 2. Most Sharda Devi wife of Late Jagdeo Singh, Resident of Village-Daulachak, P.S. Kashichak, District- Nawadah. 3. Pati Devi daughter of Late Jagdeo Singh, wife of Prahlad Singh, Resident of Village-Chhanaum, P.S. Reh, District-Nawadah. 4. Radha Devi daughter of Late Jagdeo Singh, wife of Basulal Singh, Resident of Village- Hasanpur, P.S. Narhat, District-Nawadah. Appellant-Opposite Party 1st Set. 5. Umesh Singh @ Mu son of Late Ramdeo Singh, Resident of Village-Daulachak, P.S. Kashichak, District- Nawadah. 6. Manjusha Devi daughter of Late Ramdeo Singh, wife of Radhe Singh, resident of village-Chitaura, P.S. Hathiyawan, District- Sheikhpura. 7. Kiran Devi daughter of Late Ramdeo Singh, wife of Bhaskar Singh, resident of village-Pyarepur, P.S.Sarmera, District- Nalanda. 8. Poonam Devi daughter of Late Ramdeo Singh, wife of Subodh Singh, resident of village-Pyarepur, P.S. Sarmera, District- Nalanda. 9. Kabita Devi daughter of Late Ramdeo Singh, wife of Dr. Sanjay Narayan Das, resident of village-Maraundi, P.S. Hazaribagh (Mufassal) District-Hazaribagh. Appellant-opposite parties 2nd Set. 10. Shamdeo Singh son of Late Natho Singh, resident of village- Daulachak, P.S. Kashichak, District- Nawadah. Appellant-opposite party 3rd Set. 11. Naresh Singh son of Late Jagdeo Singh 12. Hare Ram Singh son of Late Jagdeo Singh 13. Ram Nandan Singh son of Late Shamdeo Singh 14. Mithilesh Singh @ Lakhar son of Shamdeo Singh 15. Arun Singh son of Sita Ram Singh. 16. Sunil Singh son of Sita Ram Singh All resident of village-Daulachak, P.S. Kashichak District- Nawadah. Respondents-opposite party 4th Set. ------ For the petitioner : Mr. S.S.Dwivedi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh and Mr. Braj Nandan Singh, Advocates. - 2 - For opposite party no.1 : Mr. Suresh Chandra Prasad Sinha with Mr. Amar Nath Singh, Advocates. ----- 09. 03.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite party no.1. This civil revision is being finally heard at this stage at the instance of the parties. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant- appellant-petitioner challenging order dated 04.12.2008 by which three applications, one dated 18.04.1990 filed by Brahmdeo Singh (since deceased) who was respondent no.1 in the learned court of appeal below, and two dated 04.02.2007 and 22.09.2007 filed by Smt. Shanti Devi, who was respondent no.9 in the learned court of appeal below and is opposite party no.1 of this civil revision, all under the provision of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the same relief of admitting some more document as additional evidence were allowed by learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-III, Nawadah in Title Appeal No.01 of 1980 which was subsequently numbered as 14 of 2007. 3. It transpires that much after the filing of the title appeal, i.e. after about 10 years and 27 years, respondent no.1 and respondent no.9 (who had subsequently stepped into shoes of respondent no.1 on the basis of purchase by registered document) filed applications for adducing additional evidence. All these three applications containing exactly the same prayer have been allowed by the learned court of appeal below vide its common order dated 04.12.2008 against which the instant civil revision has arisen. - 3 - 4. After considering the arguments of the parties and materials on record, including the impugned order of the learned court of appeal below, it is quite apparent that admittedly remarks with regard to document which are now sought to be made exhibit had been made by the trial court as far back as on 28.11.1979 when the suit was decreed, but the said applications exhibiting the said document as additional evidence had been filed after about 11 years and 28 years, i.e. on 18.04.1990 and 04.08.2007 & 22.09.2007. 5. After arriving at the aforesaid finding of fact, the learned court of appeal below in its impugned order has arrived at two more findings that the documents in question were not within the knowledge of the respondents and that the said document may help the court to reach the truth and just decision of the case. However, regarding the said two findings, no reason at all has been given by the learned court of appeal below which appears to be absolutely baseless in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. However, there may be some reasons for the learned court below to arrive at the said findings, but non- mentioning about those reasons clearly makes the impugned order not tenable in law. 6. In the said circumstances, the impugned order of the learned court of appeal below dated 04.12.2008 is set aside and the matter under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code is remanded to the learned court of appeal below to reconsider the same in accordance with the pleadings of the parties, the materials on record and the specific provisions of law after arriving at specific reasoning for any finding to be recorded. The said matter must be decided within two - 4 - months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order in the learned court of appeal below. 7. This civil revision is allowed with the aforesaid observations/directions. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)