Ramtula Bai vs Saraswati Bai And Ors

Goutam Bhaduri, J

Heard.

The present petition is agianst the order dated 03.07.2018, whereby an application filed by the respondents No.4 & 5 under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) 3

CPC was allowed, whereby certain revenue documents were filed and an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, has been allowed.

Wherein the expert has been allowed to examine.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire case of the petitioner is that the subject land which is under dispute was given to the

petitioner/plaintiff with the consent of the owner Mahadev Prasad Chandrakar and Jivrakhan Lal and on that basis of the consent letter, the petitioner

became the owner and those consent letters have been proved before the Court. It is stated that after closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, an

application has been filed along with the revenue records to show that the signature on the consent letter of Mahadev and Jivrakhan are different as

the likewise signature also contained in the revenue papers. He further submits that the expert application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act

compared with the consent which is existing on the revenue records, since after closure of the evidence, the same has been done, it will cause a

serious prejudice and the plaintiff would not get any right to rebut the same and nothing was on record prior to examination of the plaintiff.

After perusal of the order dated 03.07.2018 I am not inclined to interfere with such order as it appears that the document accepted in evidence may

be necessary to decide the actual controversy in between the parties. In any case, it appears that the said documents were filed after closure of

plaintiff's evidence. The order reflect that the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) CPC was allowed along with the application under Section

45 of the Indian Evidence Act for the reason that the cross-examination of the defendant has not yet begun, which shows that the evidence of the

plaintiff has already closed. The documents though have been filed at the belated stage but at as of now have been allowed in records and in case the

adverse facts & evidence are lead, in such case the plaintiff cannot be taken by surprise. Therefore, in all fairness, it is directed that since the

application accepting certain document has been allowed to show that the revenue papers have different signatures of consenting parties from whom

the plaintiff is claiming her title and application has been allowed to lead evidence of expert and the fact that these efforts were carried out after

plaintiffs evidence was over, in all fairness, the plaintiff should get an opportunity to rebut the same by adducing evidence confined to the fact which

would be brought on record by way of revenue record and the expert evidence. Therefore, after the evidence of defendant is closed the plaintiff

would be at liberty to adduce evidence in rebuttal to the evidence brought on record by defendant.

With such observation, the petition stands disposed of.