PATNA, India, Nov. 24 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Nov. 1:

Instant application is being filed for setting aside the order dated 20.10.2022 in T.A. No. 13 of 2010/CIS 339 of 2013, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Purnea whereby and whereunder the application under Order XLI Rule 27(1b) of Civil Procedure Code read with Section 107(1d) of Civil Procedure Code for taking into evidence the sale deed No. 16558 dated 10.12.2009 and sale deed no. 16498 dated 09.12.2009 as additional evidence has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Partition Suit No. 166 of 1997 was instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff against the respondent-defendants, which culminated in a compromise decree dated 22.03.1997, whereby separate shares were allotted to all the co-sharers. The said suit, however, was decided ex parte against defendant nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5. Subsequently, Appeal No. 13 of 2010 was filed by defendant nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree.

3. Subsequently, as per the application filed by the respondent, defendant nos. 2 and 3 were transposed as respondents in the said appeal on the ground that they had colluded with the plaintiff-respondent. Thereafter, copies of two sale deeds executed by defendant no. 2, Bibi Zubeda Khatoon, and Bibi Hamida Khatoon were filed on behalf of the contesting respondent under Order XLI Rule 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which were rejected by the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid sale deeds contain recitals referring to the earlier partition effected through the compromise decree, and therefore, they are relevant and would be helpful for the proper adjudication of the present case.

5. In contrast, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the recitals in the aforesaid sale deeds have no bearing on the present case, as the vendors - defendant nos. 2 and 3 - have already been transposed as respondents after their names were struck off from the array of appellants. Therefore, any admission made by them would not affect the rights or title of the contesting appellants.

6. After hearing both parties, it appears that the evidentiary value of the said sale deeds shall be determined at the time of final judgment. For the present, the learned Trial Court is directed to accept those documents in evidence in accordance with law.

7. Accordingly, the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner stands allowed and instant Civil Misc. Case No. 84 of 2023 is disposed of.

8. This Court is not giving any finding regarding the evidentiary value of those documents and it will be decided by the learned appellate Court.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.