ORDER : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner herein has been impleaded as Respondent No. 7 in Title Appeal No. 33/07 before the Court of Principal District Judge, Bokaro on account of the application moved by the appellant due to passing of the decretal interest of the plaintiff/decree holder/Respondent No. 3 and 4 herein in Title Suit No. 25/96. The learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 29.05.2007 (Annexure-4) decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/Respondent No. 3 and 4 herein ex-parte and against the defendant no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and on contest against the defendant no. 4, declaring the raiyati right of permanent occupancy in the lands described in Schedule-A and B of the plaint (Suit land). The Divisional Forest Officer and other officials of the State being aggrieved, chose to prefer Title Appeal No. 33/07 from the order of which, present writ application arises. 3. There is background of litigation between the parties at the appellate stage which has been copiously referred to in the impugned order as well. Reference may be made to two such orders, one passed by the learned Division Bench in LPA No. 489/10 along with LPA No. 26/11 (State of Jharkhand & others vs. M/s Electrosteel Integrated Limited & others), whereunder the Principal District Judge, Bokaro was directed to decide the Title Appeal No. 33/07 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order i.e. 06.03.2013. The other judgment which requires to be referred to herein, is in relation to the application moved by the present petitioner seeking quashing of the order of the learned Appellate Court whereby appellant was allowed to adduce additional evidence. Learned Single Judge on that occasion vide judgment dated 17.12.2013 passed in WP (C) No. 6767/13 however was pleased to allow permission to the petitioner Electrosteel Integrated Limited to withdraw the writ petition giving liberty to them to offer rebuttal to the additional evidence. 4. Petitioner had approached this Court on that occasion on account of additional evidence having been allowed to be adduced by the learned Appellate Court by order dated 30.09.2013. Exhibit-E which is at page 186 of the instant writ petition being a page of the order sheet of Forest Settlement Case No. 50/1948-50, was exhibited as such. 4. Petitioner had approached this Court on that occasion on account of additional evidence having been allowed to be adduced by the learned Appellate Court by order dated 30.09.2013. Exhibit-E which is at page 186 of the instant writ petition being a page of the order sheet of Forest Settlement Case No. 50/1948-50, was exhibited as such. It however transpires that thereafter again, the appellant moved an application on 23.02.2015 for marking exhibit-E series i.e. the entire original record of Forest Settlement Case No. 50/1948-50 of Mouza Bhagabandh No. 83. The petition which is at Annexure-9 refers to the factum of marking of exhibit-E earlier. Learned Appellate Court allowed the said application and marked the rest of the documents comprising order sheet of the Forest Settlement Case No. 50/1948-50 as exhibit-E series being E-1 to E-7 on 23.12.2015. Petitioner herein then moved three applications dated 15.02.2016, 24.02.2016 and 14.03.2016 seeking opportunity to rebut the additional evidence adduced as exhibit-E series. This has been denied by the impugned order dated 13.04.2016 (Annexure-13) by the learned Appellate Court. Learned Appellate Court after referring to the background to the previous litigation including journey to this Court in the writ petition as well as Letters Patent Appeal No. 489/10, was persuaded to reject the application of the petitioner primarily on the grounds that they are vague and misconceived. It was of the opinion that exhibit-E and E series are public documents in nature. It however also observed that no order was passed for giving opportunity to rebut the evidence of documents marked as exhibit-E series. Learned Appellate Court also considered that the Divisional Forest Officer or the Range Officer who were being sought to be called by the Respondent No. 7/petitioner herein were neither maker nor author of the said document which are for the period 1947, 1948 and 1953 respectively as public document. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, specifically Sections 77 and 78 where principle relating to the proof of document by production of certified copy and other official documents have been defined. It is submitted that these documents in the nature of notification and orders of the State Government were to be certified by the Heads of those Departments if being sought to be adduced as evidence. It is submitted that these documents in the nature of notification and orders of the State Government were to be certified by the Heads of those Departments if being sought to be adduced as evidence. Neither appellant nor learned Appellate Court cared to conform to the requirements of law and these documents were simply marked as exhibit-E and E series without any witness appearing on their behalf either to adduce the same. However, in any case, petitioner had a right of cross-examination and adducing evidence in defence if these documents have been allowed to be adduced as additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code. That has been denied by the learned Appellate Court despite observations made by this Court earlier in WP (C) No. 6767/2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.V. Lakshman and others, 2016 (3) JLJR 364 (SC) paragraph-37 and 38 thereof. It is submitted that the appellant themselves have chosen to delay the proceedings by making an application for adducing additional evidence even after direction of the LPA Court to decide the appeal within a period of two months vide judgment dated 06.03.2013 passed in LPA No. 489/10 along with analogous cases. Petitioner herein therefore cannot be accused of delay in the adjudication of the main appeal. The petitioner who is purchaser of decretal interest of the original plaintiff/decree holder, would be seriously prejudiced if no opportunity is granted to offer rebuttal of the evidence adduced by the appellant at this stage. Therefore, he has been compelled to move this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the averments made in the rejoinder affidavit of the appellant filed before the learned Appellate Court, which is enclosed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition, whereunder even the appellant had consciously conceded that the Respondent therein did have a right of rebuttal, if additional evidence was allowed to be adduced. 6. The Respondent State has filed its counter affidavit sworn by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro. Counter affidavit of the Respondent State refers to the impleadment of the petitioner as Respondent No. 7 vide order dated 03.05.2010 passed in the instant Title Appeal No. 33/07. It also refers to the background of litigation. 6. The Respondent State has filed its counter affidavit sworn by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro. Counter affidavit of the Respondent State refers to the impleadment of the petitioner as Respondent No. 7 vide order dated 03.05.2010 passed in the instant Title Appeal No. 33/07. It also refers to the background of litigation. The other averments relating to the merits of the case of the appellant have also been averred in the counter affidavit. It is also apparent from the averments made therein that exhibit E-1 to E-7 which were part of the records of Forest Settlement Case No. 50/1948-50, were also sought to be exhibited by the appellant by making an application on 23.02.2015 after the exhibit-E was adduced earlier on 30.09.2013. The appellant has however nowhere stated that the petitioner was allowed opportunity of rebuttal of the additional evidence adduced by it at the appellate stage. 7. Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 has supported the case of the petitioner herein. 8. I have considered the submissions of the parties and relevant material facts noticed herein-above. I have also perused the impugned order. The discussion made herein-above does not leave any room of doubt that the appellant has been allowed to adduce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code by bringing on record the order sheet of Forest Settlement Case No. 50/1948-50 on two occasions, the first on 30.09.2013 exhibit-E being one page of the order sheet. On realization by the appellant that other documents in continuation of the same case had not been exhibited earlier, the same were allowed to be exhibited as exhibit-E-1 to E-7 on application made by the appellant on 23.02.2015. It is also apparent that the petitioner had been granted liberty to offer rebuttal to the additional evidence i.e. exhibit-E when he had approached this Court in WP (C) No. 6767/2013. Perusal of the petition filed by the petitioner herein dated 15.02.2016, 24.02.2016 and 14.03.2016 seeking an opportunity to offer rebuttal to the aforesaid evidence however does not give impression that they are vague so far as the prayer to seek rebuttal of the evidence adduced as exhibit-E series is concerned. Perusal of the petition filed by the petitioner herein dated 15.02.2016, 24.02.2016 and 14.03.2016 seeking an opportunity to offer rebuttal to the aforesaid evidence however does not give impression that they are vague so far as the prayer to seek rebuttal of the evidence adduced as exhibit-E series is concerned. It is trite law that even at the appellate stage, if on being satisfied the Appellate Court allows opportunity to a party to adduce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code, the other party has to be granted an opportunity of rebuttal. If such an opportunity is denied, it would not only be in violation of the rules of evidence, but also cause considerable prejudice to the other party to the litigation. Learned Appellate Court therefore seems to have committed an error in denying opportunity of rebuttal to the petitioner herein to the additional evidence adduced by the appellant being exhibit-E and E series. The impugned order therefore suffers from error of jurisdiction which deserves to be interfered under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, it is quashed. 9. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the appeal is at the sage of hearing. In that case, the learned Appellate Court would consider afresh the application for rebuttal of the additional evidence adduced by the appellant in accordance with law. However, in order to ensure that the adjudication of the main appeal is not unnecessarily lingered for long, such an exercise be concluded within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.