### Discovery of School Admission Register Containing Age Record Constitutes Valid Ground for Review Under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC

The original review petitioner, Bajranglal Modi, filed a title suit (T.S. No. 15/2008) for declaration and recovery of possession of land, claiming to be the adopted son of Late Meghraj Modi

The respondents (natural brothers of the petitioner) challenged the adoption as void ab initio, alleging the petitioner was 17 years old at the time of adoption in 1971, exceeding the statutory limit of 15 years under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956

The trial court and first appellate court upheld the adoption

However, the High Court in Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 73/2013) set aside these decrees on 22.02.2018, favoring a 17-year age mentioned in the adoption deed over an HSLC certificate

Following a remand from the Supreme Court (SLP (C) No. 25652–25653 of 2024), the petitioners seek a review based on the discovery of the original primary school admission register from 1962, which indicates the petitioner was 5 years old at entry, supporting his claim of being under 15 in 1971

1. Whether the discovery of the original primary school admission register and transfer certificate constitutes "new and important matter or evidence" warranting a review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC.

2. Whether the petitioner exercised due diligence in attempting to produce these documents during the original trial.

The court primarily applied Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which permits review of a judgment upon the discovery of new and important evidence that could not be produced at the time of the decree despite the exercise of "due diligence"

It also considered Section 9 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 regarding the validity of adoption and the requirement of parental consent

The court followed the directive of the Supreme Court in the associated SLP, which emphasized that the scope of review is wider when Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 are read together

The court noted that the previous dismissal of this review petition on the grounds of lack of "due diligence" was specifically set aside by the Supreme Court, rendering that question closed for reconsideration

The High Court reasoned that the judgment under review (dated 22.02.2018) had unsettled concurrent findings of the lower courts based on a perceived lack of evidence regarding the petitioner's age prior to 1971

The court found that the 1962 primary school admission register is a vital document that could directly resolve this age controversy

Regarding respondent claims that the register was logically inconsistent (discrepancies in sibling age gaps), the court held that the veracity and reliability of the document must be tested through cross-examination once the RSA is restored, rather than being dismissed at the review stage

The court ordered the restoration of RSA No. 73/2013 to the file and directed the Registry to list it for hearing, leaving the issues of document admissibility, reliability, and the necessity of additional evidence (Order 41 Rule 27 CPC) to be decided during the appeal