Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.
Supa Oraon son of Late Rupna Oraon - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 1241 of 2017
Decided On : 18-06-2018
Additional Evidence - Partition Suit - The court declined the application for adducing Zamindari rent receipts as additional evidence, citing statutory prohibition under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C and lack of bona-fide mistake in not producing the documents during the partition suit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, one of the appellants, sought to adduce Zamindari rent receipts as additional evidence in a partition suit. The application was declined, and the writ petition was filed against the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined the application for adducing additional evidence, stating that the statutory prohibition under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C and lack of bona-fide mistake in not producing the documents during the partition suit were sufficient reasons to dismiss the application.
Issues: The main issue was the admissibility of additional evidence in the appellate stage of the partition suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C, which prohibits the admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage, except under specific exceptions. The court also emphasized the lack of bona-fide mistake in not producing the documents during the partition suit.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decision to decline the application for adducing additional evidence.
The petitioner, who is one of the appellants in Title Appeal No. 01 of 2014, is aggrieved of order dated 19.12.2016 by which the application for adducing Zamindari rent receipts as additional evidence has been declined.
2. Partition Suit No. 11 of 2007 was instituted by Supa Oraon and Manu Oraon for a preliminary decree for partition to the extent of ½ share for the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties. The suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 21.12.2013. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No. 01 of 2014. In the pending appeal an application dated 08.04.2016 for exhibiting Zamindari rent receipts was filed by the appellants. This application has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 19.12.2016.
3. Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C mandates that parties shall not be permitted to lead additional evidence, oral or documentary, at the appellate stage. This statutory prohibition has, however, exceptions carved out under Order XLI Rule 27(a), (aa) and (b) read with sub-rule 2 to Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. During pendency of the partition suit the plaintiffs filed copies of agreement dated 30.10.1965, sale patta dated 16.12.1941, Malgujari rent receipts etc. In their application seeking leave of the appellate court for exhibiting Zamindari rent receipts, except stating that due to bona-fide mistake these rent receipts could not be adduced in evidence, the appellants have not disclosed any other reason why these documents could not be produced in the partition suit. In my opinion, when it is found that the plaintiffs have led documentary evidence in the partition suit, not filing of Zamindari rent receipts cannot be said to be a bona-fide mistake. It is not a case pleaded by the petitioner that these rent receipts were not in his possession or in spite of due diligence these documents could not be produced in Partition Suit No. 11 of 2007.
4. In the above facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 19.12.2016 and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
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
