Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Rajendra Prasad Mahto – Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Juha Bala Devi and ors. – Opposite Parties
C.M.P. No.1117 of 2023
Decided On : 14-06-2024
[CIVIL PROCEDURE] - [ADDUCING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER] - [Order XLI Rule 27, Order XXVI Rule 10A, Section 151 of CPC] - The court discussed the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27, which allows for the production of additional evidence in appellate courts under specific conditions, emphasizing that such evidence should not be admitted if the party had ample opportunity to present it in the lower court. The court also examined Order XXVI Rule 10A, which permits the appointment of a commissioner for scientific investigation, clarifying that its purpose is not to create evidence but to elucidate matters in dispute. The court found that the lower court's orders allowing additional evidence and appointing a commissioner were not justified and quashed them, reinforcing the principle that parties must substantiate their claims through evidence presented during the trial process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner contested the order allowing the respondents to adduce additional evidence and appoint a survey commissioner in a civil appeal regarding a land dispute. The original suit involved claims of possession and title over certain lands, with previous applications for additional evidence being rejected by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate court had erred in allowing the applications for additional evidence and the appointment of a survey commissioner, as these requests had already been previously denied and affirmed by higher courts. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the finality of earlier decisions.
Issues: Whether the appellate court could allow the introduction of additional evidence and the appointment of a survey commissioner after previous applications had been rejected and affirmed by higher courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 and Order XXVI Rule 10A of the CPC must be strictly interpreted, and that allowing additional evidence or appointing a commissioner should not be used to circumvent the established legal process or to create new evidence.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders of the Principal District Judge allowing the applications for additional evidence and the appointment of a survey commissioner, thereby upholding the principles of finality and procedural integrity in civil proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer
1. This Civil Misc. petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred against the order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Bokaro in Civil Appeal No.11 of 2010, by which, the petition dated 23.03.2023 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC and also, the petition dated 04.07.2023 filed under Order XXVI Rule 10A read with Section 151 of the CPC on behalf of the appellant for adducing additional evidence and appointment of Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner, has been allowed.
Facts
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the instant petition, is required to be enumerated, which reads as under:-
3. It is the case of the petitioner that Title Suit No. 30 of 2001/38 of 2006 has been filed by the plaintiffs/respondent against the defendant/petitioner praying there in a decree for declaration of right, title and confirmation of possession over the suit property, and other reliefs.
4. It is the further case that lands measuring an area of 1.09 acres purchased by the defendant Babuchand Mahto and the lands measuring an area of 0.21 acres jointly purchased by Raman Chanda Jha and Dhurlal Mahto of plot no. 74 under khata no.01 situated at Village Tand Mohanpur P.S. Jaridih, District Bokaro by virtue of Registered deed of sale No.8128 dated 26.08.1972. After purchased the said land, the purchasers came into possession over their purchased land and mutated their name in the revenue record and they have been jointly paid rent to the State government.
5. The case of the plaintiff/respondent is that in the year 1980, all the said purchasers, namely, Babuchand Mahto, Raman Chandra Jha and Dhurlal Mahto partitioned the purchased land and separately came into possession in their respective share. The further case of the plaintiff/respondent is that Raman Chandra Jha transferred his entire land i.e. 0.10, 1/2 acres which fell into his share to the plaintiff Smt. Juhu Bala Devi and her sons by virtue of Registered deed of sale dated 08.09.2000.
6. The further case of the plaintiff/respondent is that on 07.06.2001, the defendant started to amalgamate Schedule-C land and making construction of house over the suit land and consequently plaintiff filed a case under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat against the defendants which is dropped by the learned S.D.M., Bermo at Tenughat by observing that the dispute is of civil nature.
7. Thereafter, the defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing their written statement mainly on the grounds that the land described in schedule-c land of the plaint is not correct. The further case of the defendants is that plaintiff never came in possession over the purchased land. The further case of the defendant is that land measuring an area of 01.09 acres of land has been closed by erecting compound wall in the year 1973-74 by the defendants and since then they are coming in peaceful possession over the said land and the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief.
8. The Title Suit No. 30 of 2001/38 of 2006 has been dismissed by terms of judgment dated 30.10.2010 passed by Munsif, Bermo at Tenughat.
9. Against the said judgment dated 30.10.2010 the plaintiffs/appellant filed appeal being Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2010 before the learned Principal District Judge, Bokaro.
10. Thereafter, the appellant has filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in the plaint which has been rejected by the learned court below against which the plaintiffs filed W.P. (C) No. 5817 of 2012 and the same has been dismissed by this Court.
11. Again, the plaintiffs /appellants filed an application under order XLI Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code for adducing additional evidence of certified copy of sale deed dated 17.11.2006 which has been rejected by the learned court below, against which, the plaintiffs filed W.P. (C) No. 2553
The court established that additional evidence cannot be admitted in appellate proceedings if the party had prior opportunities to present it, and that the appointment of a commissioner should not be....
The court established that the appointment of a commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC is not to be used as a means to collect evidence after the closure of proceedings, and such application....
The discretion of appointing an Advocate Commissioner under CPC does not equate to gathering evidence; it serves to resolve disputes of property boundaries effectively.
In view of the nature of the dispute between the parties as regards the demarcation of the disputed land and the High Court having not addressed that issue by appointment of a local Commission for de....
The court affirmed that previous orders rejecting applications for scientific measurement in ongoing litigation are final and cannot be re-agitated, emphasizing the principles of res judicata and tim....
The court clarified that the appointment of a Commissioner for local inspection in encroachment cases is permissible even before trial, reinforcing the report as vital evidence.
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
