JUDGMENT : I.A. No.6020 of 2017 1. Heard the parties. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to frame the following additional substantial questions of law in this appeal:- [a] “Whether the contents of the sale deed dated 21st October 2014, executed by the respondent in favour of the Intervener Vani Insulation Pvt. Ltd, disclosed and judicially taken on record in the instant S.A. by this Hon’ble Court have fundamental impact on the right to relief in the S.A.? [b] “Whether entries in the recent Records of right relating to Plot No.894 and 1849 Khata No.1 Ward No.13 J.N.A.C, published in 1992, showing the status of the respondent vis-à-vis the Appellant have distinct bearing on the suit land and status of the appellant?” 3. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant of Second Appeal was the plaintiff of Title Suit No.3/58 of 1971-85 filed with the prayer for eviction of the defendant who was a month to month tenant under the plaintiff. 4. The suit was decreed by the trial court and the defendant company was directed to give vacant possession of the suit land to the plaintiff within sixty days from the date of decree. 5. The defendant filed an appeal which was registered as Title Appeal No.12/7 of 1986-95. The first appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court that the tenancy between the plaintiff and defendant was month-to-month tenancy and notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has been validly served but the first appellate court considered that though in the schedule of the plaint, the village or mouza of the suit land has not been specifically mentioned but from the descriptions of the suit land mentioned in the plaint, the village or mouza would either be Burma Mines or Burma Mines area and the said village or mouza does not figure at all in the schedule IV of the deed of lease or for that matter in any other schedule of that lease deed which has been marked Ext. 6 basing upon which the plaintiff claims ownership of the suit land and also considered that the plot No. or khata No. of the suit land has not been mentioned in the schedule A of the plaint and the first appellate court observed that the plaintiff has failed to prove that it has anything to do with the suit land and thus the plaintiff is not entitled to exercise right of eviction of the defendant and to recover possession of the same and allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. 6. Vide order dated 01.09.1997 in this appeal; the following two substantial questions of law have already been framed: (i) “Whether the first appellate court had exceeded his jurisdiction in deciding the title of the plaintiff over the suit property wherefrom the eviction was sought for when landlord and tenant relationship was not denied and when the termination of tenancy under section 106 of the T.P. Act has been held valid by both the courts. (ii) Whether the first appellate court committed error of law in not considering section 7-E of the Bihar Land Reforms Act in deciding the matter in issue.” 7. During pendency of the second appeal, the respondent No.2 filed an application to be impleaded as a party on the ground that he has purchased the suit land from the original respondent who has subsequently been nomenclated as respondent No.1 of this appeal, vide sale deed dated 21.10.2014 and a photocopy of the sale deed was annexed with the interlocutory application filed for impleading the respondent No.2 as a party in this appeal. 8. The appellant had no objection to the said petition for the impleadment of the respondent No.2 as a party in this appeal with the condition that the respondent No.2 shall not be allowed to file any rejoinder or take a plea in contradiction to the plea of the original defendant. 9. Vide order dated 10.05.2016 of this second appeal, the petition for intervention was allowed and the said purchaser has been impleaded as respondent No.2. 10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the description of the suit land tallies with the description of the property of the said sale deed dated 21.10.2014. Hence, the same has a fundamental bearing on the relief claimed in this second appeal. 11. 10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the description of the suit land tallies with the description of the property of the said sale deed dated 21.10.2014. Hence, the same has a fundamental bearing on the relief claimed in this second appeal. 11. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that though in this interlocutory application the appellant has prayed for framing of two additional substantial questions of law but he does not press the portion of the prayer for framing the proposed additional substantial question of law mentioned at sl. No. [b] in paragraph-2 of this order but submits that the proposed substantial question of law at serial No. [a] of paragraph-2 of this order be framed as the additional substantial question of law. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that the sale deed dated 21.10.2014 has got nothing to do with the issues involved in the suit or the points for determination in the appeal. The same has neither been pleaded by any of the parties to the suit nor has the same been admitted in evidence. The said sale deed is not even a part of the record of the suit. Hence, certainly the contents of the same cannot be considered in this second appeal. Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant for framing the said proposed additional substantial question of law as mentioned at serial No. [a] in paragraph-2 of this order. 13. Accordingly, this interlocutory application, being without any merit is rejected. S.A. No.67 of 1996 (R) Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time for hearing of this appeal. Prayer for time is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-(One thousand) by the appellant to the respondent through their learned counsel appearing in this appeal within four weeks, failing which, this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench. If the appellant files the proof of payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent through their learned counsel appearing in this appeal within four weeks, list this appeal on 29.11.2018.