Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 2380
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
Mahendra Pandey - Appellant
Versus
Suresh Ram - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4308 of 2016
Decided On : 12-07-2018
Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv., Arbind Kumar Sinha, Adv., Anil Kumar, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is subject to statutory exceptions, and the court may refuse such admission if the evidence sought to be admitted is unnecessary or redundant.
Headnote:
Order XLI Rule 27 CPC - Additional Evidence - The court rejected the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage, citing that the document sought to be admitted in evidence had already been refused by the Court or was already on record.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, specifically to admit a sale deed dated 18.04.1968 to corroborate their claim that their father did not make an endorsement on a sale deed dated 30.09.1950.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that since the sale deed dated 30.09.1950, which was the subject of the dispute, was already on record and bore the signature of the petitioners' father, there was no need to admit the sale deed dated 18.04.1968 as additional evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners' application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to adduce additional evidence should be granted, considering the statutory exceptions engrafted under the rule.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the sale deed dated 30.09.1950, which was the subject of the dispute, was already on record and contained the signature of the petitioners' father, making the admission of the sale deed dated 18.04.1968 unnecessary.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it was not inclined to interfere in the matter.
JUDGMENT
Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioners are aggrieved of order dated 17.05.2016 passed in Title Appeal No. 05 of 2012 by which their application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC has been rejected.
2. Order XLI Rule 27 CPC mandates that parties shall not be permitted to adduce additional evidence, oral or documentary, at the appellate stage, however, there are statutory exceptions engrafted under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. It is provided that if the document sought to be admitted in evidence has been refused by the Court from whose decree an appeal is preferred which ought to have been admitted [clause (a)], or in a case where it is established that inspite of due diligence the document could not have been produced during the trial [clause aa], or the appellate court forms an opinion that the additional document needs to be admitted or a witness shall be examined, additional evidence may be taken at the appellate stage also [clause b]. Plea taken by the petitioners is that to corroborate their stand that their father did not make endorsement on sale deed dated 30.09.1950 his admitted signature as appearing on sale deed dated 18.04.1968 needs to be admitted in evidence. However, it is an admitted position that the sale deed dated 30.09.1950 is on record.
By this sale deed the suit property was conveyed in favour of their father and while so, this sale deed would bear signature of their father. On merits, in the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that when sale deed dated 30.09.1950 is already on record, for comparing signature of the petitioners'' father sale deed dated 18.04.1968 need not be taken in evidence.
3. No doubt the stage when the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC shall be decided is the stage of final hearing in the appeal, in the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
