Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Smt. Juha Bala Devi, W/o. Shri Jagdish Chandra Mahto - Petitioners
Versus
Rajendra Mahto, S/o. Babuchand Mahto - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 2553 of 2013
Decided On : 02-09-2022
Order XLI Rule 27 - Additional Evidence - Summary of Acts and Sections: Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC - The court discussed the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the provision of Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC. It emphasized the limited scope of Article 227 and the conditions for allowing additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27, highlighting the requirement to show due diligence and the appellate court's discretion to admit evidence based on relevance and necessity for just adjudication.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to adduce additional evidence in an appeal against the dismissal of a declaratory suit. The appellate court rejected the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, leading to the challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate court's rejection of the application was not erroneous as the petitioners failed to show due diligence as required under Order XLI Rule 27. It emphasized the limited scope of Article 227 and the conditions for allowing additional evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the scope of Article 227, the requirements of Order XLI Rule 27, and the due diligence needed to adduce additional evidence in an appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited scope of Article 227 and the conditions for allowing additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27, highlighting the requirement to show due diligence and the appellate court's discretion to admit evidence based on relevance and necessity for just adjudication.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the interim order was vacated.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein order dated 18.06.2012 passed in Title Appeal No. 11 of 2010 by the Principal District Judge, Bokaro is under challenge, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed under Order XLI, Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected seeking leave of the appellate court to adduce the certified copy of the Sale Deed No. 2610 dated 17.11.2006 as additional evidence for just decision of the question involved in the suit.
2. The fact leading to filing of the instant petition is that a declaratory suit has been filed being Title Suit No. 30 of 2001, which has been dismissed being not maintainable and holding the plaintiffs not entitled for any relief as prayed for.
3. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed an appeal against the judgment dated 30.10.2001 being Title Appeal No. 11 of 2010 and an application has also been filed before the appellate court under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC seeking therein leave to allow the petitioners to adduce additional evidence by way of insertion of Sale Deed No. 2610 dated 17.11.2006, which, according to the petitioners, is necessary for just decision of the lis.
The said petition has seriously been objected by the respondent/defendant by raising the issue that such application is not maintainable since there is no compliance of the statutory requirement as provided under the provision of Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC, i.e., the petitioner/plaintiff have not shown any due diligence as to what prevented them in not bringing the said document in course of trial as the said document is dated 17.11.2006 and the suit has been filed on 24.09.2001, as would appear from the pleading made at paragraph-5 thereof.
The appellate court rejected the aforesaid application vide order dated 18.06.2012 which is under challenge in the instant petition by invoking the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners assisted by Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel has submitted that the appellate court while rejecting the application filed under Order XLI, Rule 27 has not appreciated the legal position in right perspective since the very purpose and object of the provision as contained under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC is to give a chance to the decree holder or the parties aggrieved with the judgment passed by the original court, i.e., the trial court to bring the document(s) which could not have been brought to the notice of the trial court
According to the petitioners, the Sale Deed No. 2610 of 17.11.2006 is the document which is required to be considered for the just and proper decision of the lis, but the same could not have been brought to the notice of the trial court.
5. The petitioners/plaintiffs after considering the aforesaid fact has, however, filed such application in exercise of power conferred under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC seeking leave of the appellate court to allow the petitioners to adduce the additional evidence and the appellate court ought to have taken into consideration the very object and intent as contained under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC in order for substantial justice but having not considered so, the order dated 18.06.2012 suffers from infirmity.
6. Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent has defended the order passed by the appellate court dated 18.06.2012(impugned) inter alia on the ground that there is no dispute about the fact that the provision as contained under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the CPC confers power upon the appellate court to consider the document by granting leave to the petitioners in order to bring importance document by way of additional evience for just and proper adjudication of the lis, but the aforesaid provision depends upon the fulfillment of certain conditions, i.e., the requirement under the statute is that the party seeking such leave is requir
The appellate court has the discretion to admit additional evidence if it is necessary for pronouncing judgment, and failure to consider such evidence can lead to a miscarriage of justice.
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 t....
Additional evidence – Application for taking additional evidence on record at a belated stage cannot be filed as a matter of right.
The discretion to allow additional evidence in appeal should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances as per the parameters set out in Order XVI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Proce....
Inadvertence of party or his inability to understand legal issues involved or wrong advice of a pleader or negligence of a pleader or that party did not realise importance of a document does not cons....
Appellate court cannot admit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC absent due diligence proof or necessity for judgment; must record reasons; erroneous allowance despite negligence and delay....
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
