Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
VINEET KOTHARI, J.
Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, Rep. by its Peetadhipathi - Appellant
Versus
Uttaradi Mutt, Rep. by its Peetadhipathi - Respondent
R.S.A. No. 100446 of 2015
Decided On : 14-11-2017
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 – Order 41, Rule 27 – Length of litigation is in consequential to reject additional evidence – Merely because the order dated 07.09.1974 passed by Superintendent of Land Records became the subject matter of order by KAT and even this Court, it does not prevent the trial Court or the FAC to allow such additional evidence taken on record and allow it to be proved in accordance with law and then consider and weigh such evidence and then decide the issues in accordance with law. Most of these documents were Government communication and Orders and were not in the control and possession of the defendant-RSM and defendant-RSM being not a party before KAT in the appeal filed by Vyasraja Mutt, the FAC should have helped it in completing the quest for truth and meet the ends of justice and deliver a correct judgment. The failure to do so has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.
This Court is of the view that ultimately, the quest for truth has to be pursued by the Judicial Courts and the length of litigation and time period taken and the earlier non-production of relevant evidence which goes to the root of the issues, cannot be a good ground to reject the additional evidence.
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 – Order 41, Rule 27 – Quest for truth – "Satyameva Jayte" (Truth alone Triumphs) is the quote from Mundaka Upanishad, the concluding part of the sacred Hindu Vedas and it is the North Star of our Judicial System inscripted at the bottom of our National Emblem, Ashok Stambh and Dharm Chakra. It tells us that, the 'truth' should be the Guiding Star in the entire judicial process. Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The entire judicial system has been created only to discern and find out the real truth. Judges at all levels have to seriously engage themselves in the journey of discovering the truth. That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty. Justice system will acquire credibility only when people will acquire credibility only when people will be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the truth. Truth being the cherished ideal and ethos of India, pursuit of Truth should be the guiding star of the entire justice system. For justice to be done, truth must prevail. 'Truth' has a strange but a firm character of finding its way and coming out and revealing itself even though embedded at the bottoms of time periods and piles of papers bound through the chain of litigation in the Courts of law and the quest for truth should not get bogged-down merely because a long period has lapsed.
1. The long litigative battle between the religious sects-plaintiff/respondent-Sri Uttradi Mutt (UM) and defendant/appellant-Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt (RSM) involved in the present Regular Second Appeal (RSA) was taken up for hearing for expeditious disposal under the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appeal was admitted on 13.04.2016 and following substantial questions of law were framed by coordinate bench for consideration:
(i) "Whether the lower appellate court is justified in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court without taking into consideration the relevant materials?
(ii) The lower appellate court, having held that the defendant-Mutt is entitled to perform Aradhanas and Pooja of Vrindavanas in the suit schedule property, justified in restraining the defendant by way of perpetual injunction from interfering with the suit schedule property?
(iii) Whether the lower appellate court committed an error of law in having framed point No.1 for consideration without taking into consideration the fact that the issue relating to performance of Aradhanas in the Nava Vrindavanas is inter-linked with the issue of lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property?
(iv) Whether the appellate Court erred in partly allowing the suit and in granting the relief which is mutually irreconcilable and conflicting and thus it renders the judgment null and void since it does not resolve the crux of the issue namely the religious right to perform Aradhanas?
(v) Any other substantial of law that may be cropped up during the course of the appeal?."
2. Though the present Suit No.74/2010 (filed in 1992) by Uttaradi Mutt vs. Raghvendra Swamy Mutt was originally dismissed on 18.06.2011 by the learned Trial Court, the First Appellate Court (FAC) in the RA No.123/2014 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent-(UM) on 22.04.2015 and while doing so the FAC also rejected the three applications filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the defendant/appellant-(RSM) and during the course of arguments of the present second appeal along with connected W.P.No.111125/2014, Mr. K. Suman, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant-RSM emphatically submitted that by rejection of the three applications under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC filed by the appellant/defendant-RSM, there has been a serious miscarriage of justice and the learned FAC has grossly erred in rejecting the said three applications under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and that has prevented a fraud played upon the plaintiff/respondent-UM upon the State Government and the Court be brought to the light before the Court and the said applications deserve to be allowed by this Court, because the entire foundation of the plaintiff's case can be unraveled and upset, if such fraud played by plaintiff upon the authorities of the Revenue Department, Land Survey Department and the Court, is brought to the notice of the Court and such additional evidences are allowed to be led and proved in accordance with law.
3. Mr. K. Suman, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant-RSM, further submitted that notwithstanding the impugned order of Superintendent of Land Records dated 07.09.1974 which was upheld by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) in its order dated 18.07.1981 filed by yet another sect Vyasaraja Mutt in Appeal No.356/77, to which the present appellant/defendant-RSM was not a party and the present appellant/defendant-RSM has only now challenged the said order dated 07.09.1974 in W.P.No.111125/2014 filed by the appellant/defendant-RSM, the learned FAC court below could not have rejected the said application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and other two similar Applications by its order dated 22.04.2015 in R.A.No.123/2014 (Shri Uttaradi Mutt -vs- Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt) out of which the present second appeal arises.
4. The brief of three applications under Order 41 Rule 27 is as under:
(a) Application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC da
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
