Bigan Sah And ORS v. Ramjanam Sao And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22381 of 2013 ====================================================== Bigan Sah & Ors .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

Ramjanam Sao & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lal Bahadur Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 10-10-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

This writ application has been filed by the defendant appellant petitioners against the order dated 30.08.2013 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Aurangabad in Partition Appeal No.5 of 2009 / 3 of 2009 whereby the learned appellate Court has rejected the application filed by the appellant petitioner seeking permission to adduce additional evidence.

From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Court below after hearing the parties clearly recorded finding that no proper steps were taken by the appellants petitioner for getting the document sought to be produced as additional evidence marked exhibit in the trial. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner has not made out any case that any of the clause provided under Order 41 Rule 27 is applicable in the present case.

Patna High Court CWJC No.22381 of 2013 (2) dt.10-10-2017 2/2 His only case is that these documents are necessary to prove that there had already been previous partition.

It appears that the suit was filed for partition and the defence of the defendant is that there had already been partition. Both the parties have adduced their evidence and the learned trial Court after recording finding that the parties are joint, decreed the partition suit.

In such circumstances, the order impugned neither cannot be said to be improper, illegal or that it suffers from jurisdictional error or that the lower appellate Court passed the impugned order in the manner not permitted by law. Thus, in my opinion, no case for interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is made out. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Sanjeev/- U T