IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18231 of 2010 1. Rajendra Sah S/O Late Chaturi Sah R/O Vill Sukhasan, P.S.Murliganj(Ararghat) , Distt-Madhepura Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ram Prasad Sah S/O Late Kailu Sah R/O Vill Sukhasan, P.S.Murliganj(Ararghat) , Distt-Madhepura -------------------------- 2 19.09.2011 Heard Mr. Shiv Nandan Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 18.08.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Madhepura in Title Appeal No. 57 of 2009 whereby the learned Judge has refused the application filed by the petitioner to lead additional evidence. It is not in dispute that the suit was filed for partition in the year 2005 and the defendants also filed their written statement on 05.04.2006. It so appears that the defendant-petitioner herein left the pairvi of the case since after 15.05.2007 as until passing of the judgment and decree on 21.07.2009, copy whereof has been placed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A petition was filed before the first appellate court under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27(aa) seeking to lead additional evidence. The learned court below has rejected the petition in view of the stipulations found in Order 41 Rule 27(aa). It is not a case where the defendants wanted to bring on record such evidences which were not within their due diligence at the stage of 2 filing of written statement. It is a case where the defendants abandoned their claim and did not participate in the suit proceedings. It is also held by the learned first appellate court that the evidence so sought to be adduced by the defendants, do not make out a case of any previous partition. In the circumstances, I find no infirmity with the order of the learned court below. The writ petition is dismissed. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)