IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20828 of 2011 Chamru Gareri @ Chamru Pal & Ors Versus Ramdeo Gareri & Ors ---------------------------------- 02. 01.12.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 18.10.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Tract Court No.1, Biharsharif, Nalanda in Title Suit No. 11 of 2000 whereby the learned court below rejected the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. filed by the petitioner seeking permission to adduce additional evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after judgment and decree a panchayati was held between the parties and panch paper was prepared. The petitioner filed the application for seeking permission to produce this panch paper as additional evidence in this appeal to which the respondents did not agree and the learned court below rejected the same illegally. Admittedly, the plaintiff respondent’s partition suit has been decreed. In the appeal no compromise application has been filed. Only it is stated that there was a panchayati and panch paper was prepared. However, this paper has been disputed by the plaintiff respondent and, therefore, in my opinion, it is not at all relevant for the purpose of deciding the appeal filed by the present petitioner Considering all these facts and circumstances of the 2 case, the learned court below has rejected the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. I therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)