SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(Gau) 60

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
K. LAHIRI AND T. C. DAS, J.
Md.Saifur Rahman -Appellant
Versus
State of Assam and others -Respondent
M.A. (F) No. 105 of 1982 with Civil Revn. No. 57 of 1983
Decided On : 21-04-1983

Advocates Appeared:
B. M. Mahanta, and G. N. Sahewalla, D. C. Mahanta, Govt. Advocate, Assam, Addl. Standing Counsel, Central Governmen

The appellate court's discretion to admit additional evidence is not arbitrary but is circumscribed by the limitations prescribed in O.41 R.27(aa) of the Civil Procedure Code.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - O.41 R.27(AA) - ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - CONDITIONS - DISCRETION OF APPELLATE COURT - SCOPE - PUBLIC INTEREST - ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE - END TO LITIGATION - LACUNA IN PRESENTATION OF CASE - FILLING GAPS - REMAND - VALID DECREE - SETTING ASIDE - CONDITIONS - O.41 RR.30 AND 31 - COMPLIANCE - JURISDICTION.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of citizenship and injunction restraining defendants from deporting him from India. He obtained a decree in his favor. Defendants filed an appeal and sought to adduce additional evidence alleging that the plaintiff had misdescribed his father's name. The appellate court allowed the defendants to produce additional evidence and remanded the suit for fresh disposal.

Finding of the Court:

The appellate court erred in allowing the defendants to adduce additional evidence and in remanding the suit for fresh disposal. The defendants failed to establish that the additional evidence was not within their knowledge or that they could not have produced it at the trial stage despite exercising due diligence. The appellate court also failed to comply with the requirements of O.41 Rr.30 and 31 in setting aside the decree of the trial court.

Issues: 1. Whether the defendants were entitled to adduce additional evidence in the appellate court? 2. Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to permit the defendants to adduce additional evidence? 3. Whether the appellate court's order setting aside the decree of the trial court was valid?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of O.41 R.27(aa) of the Civil Procedure Code allow a party to produce additional evidence in the appellate court only if the party establishes that, despite exercising due diligence, the evidence was not within its knowledge or could not be produced at the trial stage. 2. The appellate court's discretion to admit additional evidence is not arbitrary but is circumscribed by the limitations prescribed in O.41 R.27(aa). 3. The appellate court cannot allow a party to adduce additional evidence to remove lacunae in its case or to fill gaps in its presentation. 4. The appellate court cannot set aside a valid decree of the trial court without complying with the requirements of O.41 Rr.30 and 31.

Final Decision: The appeal and the connected revision were allowed. The order and decree of the appellate court were set aside. The appellate court was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law after serving proper notice to the parties.

Judgement

LAHIRI, J.:- The appeal and the connected Civil Revision are directed against the judgment and order dt. 6-9-1982 passed by the Assistant District Judge No. 1, Nowgong, Assam in Title Appeal No. 19 of 1978. By the impugned order the learned Judge-(I) permitted the appellants-defendants to produce additional evidence; (2) remanded the suit to the Court of the first instance for recording the evidence with a direction to dispose of the suit on the basis of the additional evidence, and (3) set aside the judgment and decree obtained by the plaintiff. In short, the learned judge allowed the defendants to produce additional evidence purporting to act under O.41, R.27(aa) of the Civil P. C, the Code for short. However, instead of recording the additional evidence himself learned Judge directed the Court of the first instance to take such evidence, and did not act u/o. 41, R.28 of the Code, without assigning any reason whatsoever. Learned Judge has set aside the hard earned judgment and decree obtained by the plaintiff and remained the suit purporting to act u/o. 41 R.23A of "the Code."

2. It is said that in determining Nations rank in political civilisation no other test is more decisive than the degree in which justice as defined by law is actually realised in its judicial administration. A trusted and vigilant judiciary can inject inspiration and vibrate vitality in our socio-economic life. It is the pressing need for the Judicial Officer to enthuse confidence in the legal institutions and in their functioning. To a common man shaken, repressed and rocked by various turmoils the only saviour appears to him "an impartial judiciary". As a member of the judiciary must be a trusted person, he must be impartial and independent. Indians clinch implicit faith in an impartial and independent judiciary. A member of the judiciary must always remind himself that he can only serve and this privilege has been given to him when others have it not. Judicial duties must be performed only as worship, without fear or favour, ill-will or affection. Justice should not only be done but must be shown to have been done.

3. Foreigners illegally staying in India should be deported lock, stock and barrel. There can be no second opinion. However, no Indian should be thrown out of India. It is easy to give a dog bad name and hang him. When the question of determination of citizenship comes up before the Court, it should well remember the far-reaching consequences of such a decision. A wrong decision can land an Indian in deep sea. Similarly, a wrong decision makes a foreigner a citizen. Both are fraught with danger. So nothing should be done in a hot haste. Before setting aside a lawfully obtained decree and remanding a suit for "fresh trial" it is pertinent and essential for a responsible judge to consider whether it is avoidable. Undoubtedly learned Judge has disposed of the appeal and earned the credit of disposal of a title appeal. But should a judge overlook the plight of a poor peasant who fought litigation and obtained the decree after about three years? There is no presumption that a member of a particular religion or group is a foreigner.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he is an Indian citizen and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, the Union of India, the State of Assam and the Supdt. of Police Nowgong restraining them from deporting him from India and obtained the reliefs. He filed the suit on 27-2-1976 and obtained the decree on 31-7-1978. Before instituting the suit he had served notices under S.80 of "the Code" on the Union of India and the State of Assam which were duly received by the defendants. The plaintiff instituted the suit and reiterated his assertions made in the notices. The plaintiff claims that he was born and brought up at Kapilipar village under Lanka P. S. District-Nowgong, Assam, and he is an Indian citizen by birth. He described his name and his fathers name in the notices as well a




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top