IMPORTANT POINT
Production of additional evidence – Power to take additional evidence in appeal is to be exercised to prevent injustice and failure of justice – Right to fair hearing is inherent to concept of due process of law and ascertainment of truth.

JUDGMENT

This Interlocutory Application, Under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.,’), is filed by the petitioners/appellants seekingto permit them to adduce additional evidence to bring on record the documents annexed to the petition in the interest of justice.

2. The brief averments of the petition enclosed to the 6th Petitioner’s affidavit as follows:

The petitioners/appellants preferred Second Appeal No.768 of 2000 under Section 100 CPC, challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2000 in A.S.No.49/1995 (Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili), which confirmed the decree in O.S.No.377/1988 dated 13.04.1989 (Principal District Munsif, Yellamanchili). The High Court granted an interim stay on 11.9.2000, restraining eviction from the suit property, Ac. 3.26 in Antakapalli Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

Initially, the respondent/plaintiff had filed O.S.No.377/1988 seeking a declaration of title and possession based on a D Form Patta allegedly granted in 1978. The petitioners/defendants contended in the suit that the Respondent’s father, a former village Karanam, fraudulently obtained the patta. The petitioners have been in continuous possession, with B-memos issued and penalties paid.

Upon a complaint to the Tahsildar in 1989, the patta granted to the Respondent was cancelled after due enquiry. This was upheld by the R.D.O., and the Joint Collector and subsequently by the High Court in W.P.No.6771/1995. Following the cancellation, D Form Pattas was granted to the petitioners, and revenue records mutated in their favour, recognizing their long-standing possession and cultivation. Despite the significance of these documents, they were not brought on record during the first appeal due to oversight. The appellants were under the mistaken belief that these records had been submitted, especially as their previous counsel, now deceased, had possession of them. After the Second Appeal was dismissed for default and later restored, the present counsel noticed the omission. This application is filed to seek leave to place these vital documents on record. The delay is neither deliberate nor negligent but due to genuine circumstances. Admitting these documents is essential for fair adjudication and will not prejudice the Respondent.

3. The Respondent filed a counter, denying all averments in the petition and submitted that the suit schedule property, comprising Ac.3.26 cents of agricultural land in Sy. Nos. 618/22 (2.27 acres) and 626/3A (Ac.0.99 cents) of Antaapalli Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, was initially Government poramboke land. In 1974, Respondent occupied portions of the land, improved about Ac.1.60 cents by spending Rs.5,000/-, and subsequently applied for assignment in 1977. The Government assigned the land through D-form Patta dated 19.09.1977 after subdivision into Sy.Nos.618/22, 626/3, and 252/12, thereby vesting ownership and possession in favour of the Respondent. In 1978, the Defendants, aided by others, obstructed the Respondent’s levelling work. The Respondent filed M.C.No.4/78 under Sec. 144 Cr.P.C., and secured restraining orders. Defendants later filed O.S.No.143/78 with a misdescription of the property, along with I.A.No.744/78, seeking a temporary injunction, which was not granted. The Tahsildar’s initial orders were suspended, and a criminal revision petition by the Respondent was dismissed due to delay. Defendants then filed W.P.No.2787/78 challenging the patta and Tahsildar’s orders. Despite the pendency of the suit, Defendants trespassed into the land on 08.06.1980, prompting Respondent to file I.A.No.390/80 for receiver appointment. Ultimately, O.S.No.143/78 was dismissed for default on 11.03.1981. Respondent filed O.S.No.377/1998 for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The Trial Court decreed in Respondent’s favor on 13.04.1989. The Appellants’ A.S.No.49/1995 was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 30.03.2000, affirming the Trial Court’s findings.