Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anil Kumar, J.
Sheetla Prasad - Appellant
Versus
Vth Additional District Judge Sultanpur and Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4502(M/S) of 2007
Decided On : 20-08-2013
Additional Evidence - Mutation Case - U.P. Land Revenue Act - Section 34 - Order 41 Rule 27 CPC - Indian Evidence Act - Section 17, 33, 70, 80 - [Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, Indian Evidence Act]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of their application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to bring additional evidence in a pending appeal. The evidence in question was a statement given in a mutation case under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The trial court had allowed a suit for cancellation of a sale deed, and the petitioner sought to introduce the statement to support their case in the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to establish that the evidence was not within their knowledge or could not have been produced at the time of the trial. The appellate court also determined that the additional evidence was not required to adjudicate and decide the appeal. The court rejected the petitioner's application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and the requirements set forth in the Indian Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the party seeking to produce additional evidence must demonstrate that it was not within their knowledge or could not have been produced at the time of the trial. Additionally, the appellate court must require the evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The court also clarified that the requirement for additional evidence must be of the court and not of any party to the suit.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the evidence sought to be brought on record was not required by the appellate court to adjudicate and decide the appeal.
Anil Kumar,J.: -
Heard Sri B.R. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel as well as Sri M.E. Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent perused the record.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.05.2007 (Annexure No. 1) passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Sultanpur in a pending appeal by which the petitioner's application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. has been rejected.
3. Facts of the case in brief are that on 01.12.1989 one Sri Ram Raj (now deceased) executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner's father Sri Dhanraj in a mutation case under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, thereafter land which is subject matter of the sale deed mutated in the name of Sri Dhanraj.
4. In the year 1987, Ramsukh, Paramsukh, Sunil Kumar, Manoj Kumar, Pawan Kumar Shiv Kumar and Jairaji have filed a suit for cancellation of the said sale deed, registered as Civil Suit No. 37 of 1987 in the Court of Munsif, Sultanpur.
5. In the said suit, in order to establish their case on behalf of plaintiffs, Smt. Jairaji (wife of Sri Dhanraj) was examined as P.W. 1.
6. On the basis of pleading, other material on record(oral & documentary evidence) by judgment and decree dated 28.02.2006, the trial court, allowed the suit, canceled the said deed dated 01.12.1989 executed in favour of Sri Dhanraj.
7. Aggrieved by the said fact, the present petitioner (Sri Sheetla Prasad) filed a civil appeal (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2000).
8. During the pendency of the appeal before O.P. No. 1, an application dated 04.03.2007 (numbered as Paper No. 70 GA-2) under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been moved by petitioner/Sheetla Prasad to bring the statement of Smt. Jairaji in mutation case under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act on the record of the appeal.
9. The facts on which the said application has been moved are that while preparing the appeal for hearing in the month of January, 2007, a legal advise has been given to him that the said document/evidence is material for adjudication of the dispute involved in the appeal, so after obtaining the copy of the statement of Smt. Jairaji from the competent court, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. has been moved at appellate stage.
10. On behalf of the plaintiff/respondent, an objection was filed that the averment as made by defendant-petitioner in the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to bring the statement of Smt. Jairaji was already on record before the trial court and the defendant-petitioner has got knowledge of the said fact. In spite of the said fact, he has not made any effort to bring the same as an additional evidence in order to support his case. So, now as per the provisions as provided under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the same cannot be brought by way of additional evidence at appellate stage, so the application moved by him in this regard is liable to be rejected.
11. After hearing the parties concerned on the point in issue, by order dated 08.05.2007, O.P.No. 1/ Vth Additional District Judge, Sultanpur ejected the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C.
12. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.
13. Sri B.R. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the said document is not within the knowledge of the petitioner/defendant, so the same was not brought on record during the trial stage and when the necessity of the said document came to the notice of the petitioner, as per legal advice given to him, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC moved in order to bring the same on record, so keeping the said facts and as per the provisions as provided under Order 41 rule 27(1)(aa), and taking into consideration the word "substantial cause" as exists under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b), the appellate court should have allowed the application moved by the petitioner for taking the statement of Smt. Jairaji given in the mutation case at the appellate stage as additional evidence. However, i
AI
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
