2025:JHHC:28358 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 857 of 2025 ------ 1. Sadhu Pad Rakshit, son of Late Patol Rakshit, resident of Ankduara, P.O. Ankduara, P.S. Nirsha, District Dhanbad 2. Swapan Rakshit, son of Sadhu Rakshit, resident of Ankduara, P.O. Ankduara, P.S. Nirsha, District Dhanbad 3. Uday Rakshit, son of Sadhu Rakshit, resident of Susunliya, P.O., P.S. and District Dhanbad 4. Sarama Devi, wife of Subhas Modak, resident of Guludih, P.S. Baliapur, P.O. Palani, District Dhanbad 5. Mamta Singh, wife of Samir Singh, resident of Tetulia, P.O. Ankduara, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad 6. Rupali Devi, wife of Raghunath Modak, resident of Bara Ambona, P.O. Chhotaambana, P.S. Baliapur, District Dhanbad 7. Saroti Rakshit, daughter of Sadhu Rakshit, resident of Ankduara, P.O. Ankduara, P.S. Nirsha, District Dhanbad 8. Monu Rakshit, son of Sadhu Rakshit, resident of Ankduara, P.O. Ankduara, P.S. Nirsha, District Dhanbad .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. Jagat Singh 2. Mantu Singh Both sons of Gosta Singh 3. Sasthi Singh 4. Ayan Singh 5. Kartik Singh All sons of Late Kalipada Singh, Nos.1 – 5 resident of Village Ankduara, P.O. Ankduara, P.S. Nirsha, District Dhanbad 6. Smt. Rita Mairani, daughter of Late Kalipada Singh, resident of Village Khosuri, P.O. Poddardih, P.S. Nirsha, District Dhanbad 7. Smt. Khandu Mairani, wife of Late Gostha Singh, resident of Village Khosuri, P.O. Poddardih, P.S. Nirsha, District Dhanbad 8. Smt. Meta Sahani, wife of Dhiren Sahani, resident of Village Bhagabandh, P.O. Borabenia, P.S. Nirsha, District Dhanbad .... .... .... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Order No.05 / Dated : 16.09.2025 Petitioners are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest being Title Suit No.106/2008 which was dismissed by the learned trial court against which the Civil Appeal No.178/2020 was preferred before the Principal District Judge, Dhanbad. 2. Plaintiffs/appellants filed petition to adduce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, which has been rejected by the learned 2025:JHHC:28358 first appellate court, against which the instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioners that the documents sought to be adduced into evidence at the appellate stage, were not available with the plaintiffs and could not be obtained despite exercise of due diligence. Therefore, when they came in possession of the old Ration Card, Choukidari Receipt issued in the name of the appellants’ father Patol Rakshit, photocopy of voter list of Gram Panchayat Ankuduara, these documents were verified before the first appellate court, which have been rejected. 4. Having considered the submissions advanced, it appears that the plaintiffs/petitioners filed the suit for declaration of plaintiffs’ permanent tenancy right over Schedule ‘B’ land and for a decree for confirmation of possession over it, and also for the relief of permanent injunction was sought for. 5. The documents which the petitioners seeks to produce, cannot be said to be the documents of title or possession. Further, no cogent reason has been assigned that why these documents were not produced at the trial court stage. Learned first appellate court has discussed at length the reason for rejecting the petition for additional evidence. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Civil Miscellaneous Petition accordingly, stands rejected. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) 16.09.2025 Anit