Shiv Murat Singh vs Ramashankar Singh

Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff/ appellant/petitioner and the respondent.

The present petition has been filed "for quashing the order dated 04.09.2019 passed by Sri Dhirendra Bahadur Singh, Additional District Judge-III, Buxar in Title Appeal No. 94 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the petitions dated 21.05.2015 and 26.02.2019 filed by the appellant/petitioner under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for admitting the deed of Bai-wul-wafa dated 10.06.1994 executed by Dubari Singh in evidence has been rejected and to pass an order directing to compare the 'thump impression' of Dubari Singh over the deed of Bai-wul-wafa dated 10.06.1994 with the sale deed dated 02.02.1991."

Learned counsel for the plaintiff/ appellant/petitioner submits that the learned appellate Court ought to have allowed his prayer for verification of the thump impression of the plaintiff/ appellant/petitioner's late father Dubari Singh over the sale deed dated 02.02.1991. It is submitted that the prayer ought to have been acceded to, having regard to the nature of the suit which had been filed for setting aside the sale deed dated 02.02.1991 which was a fake and forged one. It is submitted that the plaintiff/ appellant/petitioner's father died on 31.03.1999 and the plaintiff/appellant/petitioner came to know about the fake and fabricated sale deed dated 02.02.1991 only in the year 2002 when the respondent had the land mutated in his name and started creating disturbance.

Learned counsel for the respondent appears suo motu and opposes the petition. He submits that the disputed deed dated 02.02.1991 was executed by the plaintiff/ appellant/petitioner's father, but the suit has been filed as late as in the year 2002. Admittedly the plaintiff/appellant/petitioner had knowledge of all relevant facts at that stage, yet no pleading with respect to comparison of the thump impression or its verification was made in the plaint nor at any stage in the suit which came to be dismissed in 2010. Even after filing of the title appeal in 2010, the petition has been filed after another five years in the year 2015.

Having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. It appears that the application filed by the plaintiff/ appellant/petitioner was earlier allowed by the learned appellate Court below, but upon being challenged in CWJC No. 14802 of 2015 (Rama Shankar Singhremandedvs.Sho Murat Singh and Anr.,) the matter was set aside and for fresh decision by order dated 18.01.2016 passed by this Court. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order dated 04.09.2019 has been passed, in which it has been observed that the evidence sought to be admitted was not covered within the three exceptions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC which ordinarily prohibits additional evidence being admitted. It has also been observed that the evidence sought to be admitted was beyond the pleadings. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality, infirmity or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order.

The petition stands dismissed.