Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Basudev Dutta @ Basudeo Dutta, S/o. Binay Kumar Dutta - Petitioner
Versus
Edus Birdget Collette, D/o. Late R.W. Collette - Respondent
C.M.P. No. 362 of 2023
Decided On : 19-04-2024
[CPC] - [Additional Evidence] - [Order XLI Rule 27] - [The court discussed the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, which allows for the production of additional evidence in appellate courts under certain conditions. The court emphasized that the appellate court has the discretion to admit additional evidence if it is necessary to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any substantial cause. The interpretation of this rule was influenced by precedents from the Supreme Court, which highlighted the importance of ensuring that justice is not compromised due to the absence of critical evidence. The court concluded that the appellate court's rejection of the application for additional evidence was improper as it failed to consider the relevance of the evidence in question.]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a Title Suit for declaration of right, title, and interest over certain properties, claiming ownership based on purchase and continuous possession. The suit was dismissed by the lower court, leading to an appeal where the plaintiff sought to introduce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, which was rejected by the appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate court did not properly consider the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27, particularly clause (b), which allows for the admission of additional evidence if necessary for judgment. The court noted that the registered Power of Attorney was crucial to the case and should have been considered.
Issues: Whether the appellate court erred in rejecting the application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC without considering its relevance to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellate court must consider the necessity of additional evidence for pronouncing judgment and that the failure to do so constitutes a legal error. The court emphasized that the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 are designed to prevent miscarriages of justice.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition, directing the appellate court to reconsider the application for additional evidence in light of the principles established under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. Pursuant to the order dated 12.04.2024, the report has been furnished on 18.04.2024 by the learned Registrar General (I/c.)
2. It is evident from the aforesaid report that on the direction of Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice, the show-cause notice has been issued upon the concerned employees of the concerned Sections, namely, Sri Shailendra Kumar Sonu, S.O. cum Dealing Assistant I/c and Sri Akhilesh Kumar, Dealing Assistant and replies to the said show-cause notice have been submitted which are under consideration.
C.M.P. No. 362 of 2023
Prayer
3. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of the order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the learned District Judge-IV, at Chaibasa in Civil Appeal No.02/2021 whereby and whereunder the application filed on behalf of the petitioner/appellant under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) for adducing additional evidence at the appellate stage has been rejected.
Brief Facts of the Case
4. The case of the plaintiff/petitioner(herein) in short is like that the Title suit no.06 of 2005 has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for declaration of the right, title and interest over the suit property as described in schedule A and schedule B of the plaint.
5. The fact as narrated in the said Title Suit being Title suit no.06 of 2005 is like that the father of the plaintiff (petitioner herein), namely Vinay Kumar Dutta (original plaintiff) purchased the schedule 'A' property from its previous owner and for valuable consideration by sale deed no. 414 of 1989, dated 17.04.1989 executed by Sri Bunilal Singh, S/o. Late Shivdat Singh as Attorney holder of Russel Fernandes, S/o. Late J. Fernandes in respect with raiyati land situated in Mauza Kolchakrá Municipal, Ward No. 5, Chakradharpur, Plot No. 260, Khata No. 114 having an area of 0-4-0 Katha.
6. Further by another sale deed no.2682 dated 28.02.1990 executed by self same vendor in favour of the plaintiff, land bearing Plot No. 259, Khata No. 114, Ward no. 5, Chakradharpur having an area of 0.38 decimals was purchased by the plaintiff and simultaneously with purchase of land as above, the plaintiff came in possession of the entire lands and the plaintiff extended his possession over the contiguous of Plot no. 260 and came into possession in all of 0.75 decimals of land.
7. Thus, plaintiff is in continuous, peaceful, open and uninterrupted possession of 0.75 decimals of land fully described in schedule 'B' of the plaint. Plaintiff has acquired Indefeasible right, title and interest over the 2 decimals of land by continuous possession of the same in his own right since February, 1990 and onward till date, which is more than 12 years and have thus perfected his right, title under principles of adverse possession law of prescription.
8. Further case of the plaintiff is that after purchase of the land for valuable consideration plaintiff raised pucca structures thereon in the year 1989 and is residing there with all his family members and he is regularly paying the land revenue to the State as also the holding Tax for the new holding no. 5 to the Municipal Authorities and the suit lands were duly recorded in the Recent Survey under Khata no. 114 in the name of Russel Fernandes, the vendor of plaintiff and the schedule "A” property has duly been mutated in the name of the plaintiff in Chakradharpur Anchal Mutallion Case No. 297 of 1995, vide order dated 18:08 1996.
9. Further case of the plaintiff is that coming to know of the Execution Case No.7 of 1995 of the Court of learned Sub-Judge I, Chalbasa, the plaintiff filed an application claiming right, title and interest over the suit properties, which was registered as Misc. Case No.12 of 2004. However, the learned Subordinate Sub-Judge-I vide order dated 06.10.2004 dismissed the Misc. Case.
10. Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in the court of learned District Judge, Chaibasa vide Misc. Appeal No.3
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....
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....
(1) Additional evidence – Parties do not possess any vested or automatic right to seek admission of additional evidence at appellate stage.(2) Appeal is ordinarily to be decided on evidence adduced b....
The court emphasized the requirement for additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, as per the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of the C.P.C. and releva....
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....
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
