Back
1971 Supreme(All) 160
Allahbad High Court
O.P.TRIVEDI
Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P., Lucknow - Appellant
Versus
Chaudhari Sarfaraz-un-Zaman - Respondent
Decided On : 07/14/1971
Chief Standing Counsel K.S. Verma, for Applicant; M.M. Lal, for Opposite Parties.
The appellate Court has jurisdiction to admit additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27(1)(c), Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Allahabad High Court, to enable it to pronounce judgment, if it finds that the evidence is required to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.
Headnote:
ORDER 41, RULE 27, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - POWER OF APPELLATE COURT - U.P. (TEMPORARY) CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION ACT, SECTION 7-F - RESTRAINT ORDER - PRODUCTION OF - RELEVANCE.
Fact of the Case:
The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P., filed a revision petition challenging the order of the Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, allowing the reception of additional documents under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure. The Deputy Registrar had filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner from certain premises based on permission granted under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. An ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner, who then filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the ex parte decree, claiming that he had made a representation to the State Government under Section 7-F of the Act for setting aside the permission to sue granted in favor of the opposite parties. The State Government had passed an order restraining the opposite parties from filing a suit for ejectment on a representation under Section 7-F of the Act against another tenant of the premises. The Deputy Registrar sought to explain his absence on the date of the ex parte decree based on this restraint order. The application was rejected by the Munsif, and the Deputy Registrar filed an appeal. During the hearing of the appeal, the plaintiff-opposite parties filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, for permission to produce a copy of the restraint order and another order rejecting the Deputy Registrar's representation under Section 7-F of the Act. The Civil Judge allowed the application, permitting the production of the documents to enable the Court to pronounce judgment more effectively.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appellate Court had jurisdiction to admit additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27(1)(c), Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Allahabad High Court, to enable it to pronounce judgment. The Court found that the Civil Judge had examined the evidence on record and considered the new case taken by the petitioner in arguments during the hearing of the appeal. The Court also found that the Civil Judge had considered the relevance of the restraint order to the pending suit and had concluded that it would be almost conclusive in exposing the unfounded nature of the petitioner's case in the appeal. Therefore, the Court held that the additional evidence was admitted for substantial cause.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellate Court had jurisdiction to admit additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27(1)(c), Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Allahabad High Court, to enable it to pronounce judgment. 2. Whether the Civil Judge erred in allowing the production of the restraint order and another order rejecting the Deputy Registrar's representation under Section 7-F of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the appellate Court has jurisdiction to admit additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27(1)(c), Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Allahabad High Court, to enable it to pronounce judgment. The Court found that the Civil Judge had examined the evidence on record and considered the new case taken by the petitioner in arguments during the hearing of the appeal. The Court also found that the Civil Judge had considered the relevance of the restraint order to the pending suit and had concluded that it would be almost conclusive in exposing the unfounded nature of the petitioner's case in the appeal. Therefore, the Court held that the additional evidence was admitted for substantial cause. 2. The Court held that the Civil Judge did not err in allowing the production of the restraint order and another order rejecting the Deputy Registrar's representation under Section 7-F of the Act. The Court found that the documents were relevant to the pending suit and that their production would enable the Court to pronounce judgment more effectively.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the revision petition with costs to the opposite parties.
2. The material facts are these: Opposite Parties had filed a suit in the Court of the Munsif for ejectment of the petitioner from a certain premises on the basis of a permission said to have been granted under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act an ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner; whereupon he moved through an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree taking the plea that he had made a representation to the State Government under Section 7-F of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act for setting aside the permission to sue granted in favour of the opposite parties. The State Government had passed an order restraining the opposite parties from filing a suit for ejectment on a representation under Section 7-F of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) against another tenant of the premises Sri S.P. Mathur and on the basis of this restraint order the petitioner sought to explain his absence on the date on which the ex parte decree was passed. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree was opposed by the plaintiff-opposite parties who admitted on an objection on the counter affidavit that the State Government had passed an order restraining the opposite parties from filing a suit on their representation against another tenant Sri S.P. Mathur but maintained that the said order was passed by the State Government after filing the suit and was therefore infructuous and in any case it was pleaded that the petitioner having knowledge of filing of the suit and of the date fixed the restraint order could not be regarded as substantial cause for absence. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree having been rejected by the Munsif the Deputy Registrar filed an appeal which came up before the Civil Judge Mohanlalganj. This appeal was heard by the Civil Judge on 26-10-1970 and the judgment was reserved. The very next day (i.e., on 27-10-1970) the plaintiff-opposite parties filed an application before the Civil Judge under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure for permission to produce copy of the restraint order of the State Government dated 21-11-1968 and copy of another order of the State Government by which representation of the Deputy Registrar under Section 7-F of the Act was rejected. Notice of this application was issued by the Civil Judge to the Deputy Registrar and arguments of both the parties were heard on the application on 22-1-1971 by the successor of the Civil Judge who had earlier heard arguments in the appeal and reserved judgment. The application was allowed and both the documents were permitted to be filed by the plaintiff opposite parties before the appellate Court "for enabling the Court to pronounce its judgment more effectively and satisfactorily as both these documents appear to have a bearing on the question at issue." The defendant-petitioner was also given an opportunity to file documents in rebuttal within 15 days and a date for hearing of the appeal was fixed. It is patent from the impugned order of the Civil Judge that the documents were permitted to be filed by the appellate Court in exercise of power conferred on it by clause (c) of Rule 27(1) of Order 41, Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Court. Rule 27(1) of Order 41 as amended by this Court reads as follows:
"27. (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if-
(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence wh
