-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1047 of 2024 1. Ku Murmu, S/o. Kandan Murmu, aged about 36 years. 2. Bara Murmu, S/o. Kandan Murmu, aged about 33 years. 3. Mukhtar Murmu @ Sushil Murmu, S/o. Kandan Murmu, aged about 31 years. All R/o Village-Phulo Lakshmi, P.O. Mandro, P.S- Mirzachouki, District-Sahibganj, Jharkhand. ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. Gora Tudu, S/o Late Ram Tudu. 2. Ram Tudu @ Chetan Tudu, S/o. Late Barsha Tudu. 3. Pandey Tudu, S/o. Late Barsha Tudu. 4. Sanjhali Marandi W/o Late Barsha Tudu. All R/o. village Phulo Lakshmi, P.O. Mandro, P.S.-Mirzachouki, District- Sahibganj. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O., P.S. and District Sahibganj. ..... … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, A.C. to AAG-IA. ------ 04/ 28.01.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 20.07.2024, passed in Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2017 by the District Judge-I, Sahibganj, by which, the petition filed by the petitioners under Order-XLI, Rule-27 of CPC was rejected. 3. Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Title Suit No. 17 of 2013 was instituted by O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 for declaration of the right, title and interest and the said suit was decided by judgment dated 22.02.2017 and the decree signed thereupon on 02.03.2017 and the suit was allowed. He submits that the petitioners are the defendants in that suit and they preferred Title Appeal No. 05 of 2017 and on 29.01.2024, a petition under Order- XLI, Rule-27 of CPC was filed praying therein to enable them to bring on record the certain documents in support of their claim, which was not produced during trial by their counsel, however, the said petition -2- was rejected by the learned court without considering the spirit of Order-XLI, Rule-27 of CPC. On these grounds, he submits that the said order may kindly be set aside and they may be allowed to bring on record the certain documents. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there is no due diligence, which is one of the parameter to consider such prayer under Order-XLI, Rule-27 of CPC. She submits that the appeal was preferred in the year 2017, wherein the petition under Order-XLI, Rule-27 of CPC has been filed on 29.01.2024, as such, there is delay of almost six years in filing the said petition. 5. In view of the above submissions of the parties, the court has looked into the order of the learned court and finds that the learned court has elaborately dealt with the issues in question and the learned court has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Versus Ibrahim Uddin & Anr., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 and thereafter has come to the conclusion that additional evidence on record at a belated stage cannot be filed as a matter of right and in light of that the said petition was dismissed. 6. If the evidence could have been tendered in the learned Court and the party has not been vigilant in producing it then that evidence cannot be allowed to be let in at the appellate stage on the supposition that a substantial cause for producing it exists in the appeal. This is also the view taken by a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh high Court in the case of Kashibai Nathusingh v. Tulsabai Delanslngh Lodhi reported in 1961 0 MPLJ 906 where in para 5, it has been held as under:- “5. Learned counsel sought to bring the case under "for any other substantial cause" mentioned in Order 41, Rule 27 (1) (b) Even where the appellate Court requires additional evidence for any other substantial cause, the requirement must be that of the Court and not of the party. This is clear from the decision of the Privy Council in Radha Kishun vs. KhurshedHussain 47 I. A. 11. If the evidence could have been tendered in the lower Court and the party has not been -3- vigilant in producing it, then that evidence cannot be allowed to be let in at the appellate stage on the supposition that a substantial cause for producing it exists in the appeal In this connection, learned counsel referred us to Shobharam vs. Raj- kumar AIR 1959 V.P. 118 where the learned Judges granted to the appellant leave to produce certain documents in the appeal before them. The leave was granted under Order 41, Rule 27. That case is of no assistance to the appellant because the learned Judges felt that they were unable to pronounce judgment in the appeal before them without the additional evidence admitted by them. That is not a case where this Court sat in judgment over the view of the Judge of the lower Court as to his ability or inability to pronounce judgment on the material available on the record.” 7. In view of the above, the excuse made of not bringing on record such documents by their counsel is not tenable, as the case of lack of vigilance is made out. As such, no case of interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-