IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.336 of 2007 ---- Chandeshwari Yadav @ Chandeshwari Prasad Yadav, son of Late Jurilal Yadav, resident of Mauja Bhan Tekahti, Tola Dighra, P.O. Arra, P.S. and District Madhepura. --Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner. Versus 1. Upendra Yadav 2. Janardan Yadav 3. Shiv Nandan Yadav 4. Chandeshwari Yadav All sons of Late Fudan Yadav, resident of Mauja Bhan Tekathi Tola Dighra, P.O. Arra, P.S. and District Madehpura. -- Defendants-Respondents-Opposite parties. ------ For the petitioner : Mr. Dronacharya, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ---- 03. 29.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiff- appellant-petitioner challenging order dated 28.12.2006 by which the learned Additional District Judge-cum- Fast Track Court-4, Madhepura, rejected his two applications both dated 04.04.2000, one under the provision of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the other under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the said Code filed in Title Appeal No.11 of 1994. 3. The aforesaid title appeal has arisen out of Title Suit No.20 of 1990 which was filed by the petitioner for confirmation of his possession and in the alternative recovery of possession in his favour and also for permanent injunction against the defendants of the suit with respect to the suit property. The said suit was contested by the defendants-respondents-opposite parties and after hearing the parties and considering the evidence the said suit was dismissed on - 2 - contest without cost by the learned Additional Munsif, Madhepura vide his judgment and decree dated 08.03.1994. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff- appellant-petitioner filed the above mentioned Title Appeal No.11 of 1994. 4. In the said title appeal, the appellant filed an application dated 04.04.2000 under the provision of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for admitting sale deed dated 22.03.1946 executed by Motilal Mandal and others in favour of Mahabir Mandal, as well as sale deed dated 13.10.1950 executed by Mahabir Mandal in favour of Dorik Mandal and also an information petition as exhibits. In addition to that the appellant-petitioner also filed an application on the same date dated 04.04.20000 under the provision of Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adding certain paragraphs in the plaint in connection with the aforesaid documents. Both the applications were considered by the learned court of appeal below and were rejected by the impugned order dated 28.12.2006. 5. Since by the impugned order two applications were disposed of, learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with the question that how can one civil revision be maintainable against dismissal of two applications by the learned court below. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he limits this civil revision only to that part of the impugned order by which his application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure - 3 - was rejected. In the said circumstances, this civil revision is confined to only that part of the impugned order of the learned court below by which the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. However, the other part of the said order by which the petitioner’s petition under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected remains unchallenged. 6. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the impugned order of the learned court below, but it is quite apparent that the specific claim of the plaintiff in the suit was that the original owner was Sukhai Mandal from whom his son Mahabir Mandal inherited the suit land and after the death of Mahabir Mandal, his widow Daya Rani and his sons Jhari Yadav, Chhedi Yadav and Yogindar Yadav inherited the suit land, whereafter the said Daya Rani along with Jhari Yadav sold the suit land in favour of the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 06.11.1986. However, now the documents which the petitioner wants to be exhibited, would completely change his stand showing that Mahabir Mandal got the suit land by purchase from some other persons as far as back in the year 1946 and 1950. In the said circumstances, the pleadings have to be completely changed, but by the dismissal of the application for amendment, the pleadings have not been changed and hence there is no occasion for getting the said documents exhibited. 7. The learned court below while passing the impugned - 4 - order considered the entire matter in detail and has found that the genuineness of the documents sought to be exhibited is under cloud due to various infirmities and they are merely certified copies of sale deeds which having been registered, the presumption would be that every one had knowledge about the same, especially when they are claimed to be documents in favour of Mahabir Mandal from whose widow and son, the petitioner claims to have purchased. 8. The learned court below has also found that the certified copy of the aforesaid deeds sought to be exhibited were received by the petitioner on 14.05.1999 and the petition for taking them into evidence in the appellate court had been filed after a delay of about eleven months, although it was the abundant duty of the plaintiff- appellant to file them immediately and if there was a delay, to explain the said delay, but in the instant case as it appears from the application filed by the petitioner as well as from the impugned order that no cogent reason was given to explain the delay. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned court below has rightly rejected the said application of the petitioner. This court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)