The appellate court may only admit additional evidence under specific conditions, which were not met by the petitioners, as they failed to demonstrate due diligence in producing the evidence during the trial.

JUDGMENT :

(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)

1. With the consent of parties, the present matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. By way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC” for short), the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.08.2024 passed application, Exh.18 by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Regular Civil Appeal No.1 of 2022, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC seeking permission to produce additional documents came to be rejected.

3. The facts of the case in nutshell are as under,

3.1 The petitioners are the original defendant nos.1 to 3, whereas the respondent no.1 is the original plaintiff and the respondent no.2 is the original defendant no.4.

3.2 The respondent no.1 had filed Special Civil Suit No.240/2008 before the court of the learned Principal Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) against the petitioners and the respondent no.2 herein inter alia praying for direction upon the petitioners – original defendants to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of Plot No.1 admeasuring 61 Sq. Yards. (535 Sq.Mtrs.) in The Khurshid Co.Op.Ho.Soc.Ltd., situated on the land bearing Survey No.728 of moje Vejalpur, Taluka : City, District : Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “property in question” for short) and also prayed for cancellation of the sale deed dated 29.12.2006 executed in favour of Nafisha Javed Saiyed as well as sale deed dated 09.04.2008 executed in favour of Asarafjaha Habibbhai declaring it to be null and void ab initio and also sought permanent injunction.

3.3 On filing of the suit, notice came to be issued upon the original defendants and in pursuance to the issuance of notice, the original defendants have appeared through their advocate and also filed their reply and written statement and, thereafter, the suit proceeded further and both the parties have led their oral as well as documentary evidence.

3.4 Thereafter on the strength of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties and after having considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties, the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad, by judgment and order dated 02.12.2021, was pleased to allow the suit and thereby directed the original defendants to handover the possession of the property in question within a period of 60 days and also cancelled the sale deed dated 29.12.2006 executed in favour of Nafisha Javed Saiyed as well as sale deed dated 09.04.2008 executed in favour of Asarafjaha Habibbhai declaring it to be null and void ab initio and restrained the defendants and/or their agent, servants etc. from interfering with the property in question.

3.5 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioners have approached the learned District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.1 of 2022, wherein notice came to be issued and in pursuance thereto, the respondent no.1 appeared through advocate.

3.6 However pending aforesaid appeal, the petitioners have submitted an application, Exh.18 under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC seeking permission to produce addition documents at Exh.19 i.e. (1) Resolution dated 15.06.1977 passed by the Board of Directors of Bimal Investment Pvt. Ltd at Exh.19/1; and (2) copy of the order dated 30.04.2022 passed by the City Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad (West) in Case No.4/2021 at Exh.19/2.

3.7 After considering the facts of the case and the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties, the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), by impugned order dated 28.08.2024, was pleased to partly allow the application, Exh.18, whereby the said application came to be allowed for the document at Mark-19/2, whereas rejected the said application for the document at Mark