IMPORTANT POINT
The admissibility of additional evidence in appellate courts under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC requires the party to demonstrate due diligence in producing the evidence and that the trial court had refused to admit it; failure to meet these criteria results in the rejection of such applications.

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Giridih in Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2019 (Annexure 3), whereby and whereunder the petition dated 04.12.2021 (in the impugned order it is mentioned as 06.12.2021) filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order has vehemently argued that the learned curt below has miserably failed to take into consideration that the documents proposed to be adduced as additional evidence are very much essential in this case for full and final adjudication of the lis between the parties. The petitioner has proved all the requirement for admission of additional evidence as required under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC which has been ignored by the court below without assigning the valid and sound reasons.

3. It is further submitted that the respondent/plaintiff has filed Eviction Suit No. 21 of 2008 against the petitioner for eviction from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent. The real fact is that the present petitioner/defendant was never inducted as tenant by the plaintiff over the suit premises as such there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant/petitioner. It is further submitted that originally the land under suit was recorded in the name of one Khuda Bux Mian in survey settlement khatiyan and with his permission the defendant/petitioner has constructed Khaparapose house over the portion of the said land of plot no. no. 641 under Khata No. 7 of Isri Bazar since then petitioner is residing along with his family members in the said portion of said premises since more than last 50 years. It is further submitted that plaintiff is claiming title over the suit premises on account of the purchased through sale deeds from one Dinesh Bhagat who had no right title and interest to execute any sale deed in favour of any person and is not binding upon the interest of petitioner. It is further submitted that the said title suit was decreed by learned trial court in favour of plaintiff which has been assailed in civil Appeal No. 42 of 2019 by the present petitioner and during pendency of the appeal while petitioner was searching some documents in relation to the subject matter of the suit, found some documents kept in old box which were not available during the trial of the case, hence, the same could not be adduced in evidence during trial of the suit. Hence, defendant/petitioner filed an application dated 04.12.2021 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC along with list of some documents, which are more than 40 years old consisting of postcard correspondence, bank cheque book, challan, letter pad, documents issued by the Forest Department and Panchayat paper which shows that the appellant Dinesh Bhagat is living in the suit premises prior to 1987. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that those documents are necessary for just and complete decision of the suit and appeal and the learned court below have committed an error by declining to admit the said vital documents as additional evidence, hence, impugned order is fit to be set aside by allowing this petition.

4. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the petition filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by the present petitioner/defendant was devoid of merits and tainted with deliberate delay in the trial of the case and the hearing of the appeal. The learned appellate court has rightly rejected the aforesaid application of the petitioner observing that it was with object to fill up the lacuna or to patch up weak points in the case of the defendant. The reasons assigned by the appellant for non production of said documentary evidence before the learned trial court was not sufficient and the same was refused and as such, the documents as filed on behalf of the a