JUDGMENT

1. By way of the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

“A) Be pleased to admit and allow this Special Civil Application;

B) Be pleased to issue the writ of certiorari / mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the order (Impugned) dated 2.3.2024 passed below Exh.7 in Regular Civil Appeal No.7 of 2021 by the Learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Deodar, (Ann:A) by holding and declaring the same as unjust, improper, arbitrary, against the principles laid down by this Honourable Court as well as Honourable Supreme Court of India, and passed without proper application of judicious mind, in the interest of A justice.

C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the order impugned dated 2.3.2024 passed below Exh.7 in Regular Civil Appeal No.7 of 2021 by the Learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Deodar (Ann:A), in the interest of justice;

D) Be pleased to grant such other and further relief that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.B. Rana for the petitioners and learned AGP, Mr. Shivam Parikh for respondent – State.

3. At the outset, learned advocate for the petitioners has contended that the suit was filed by the present petitioners seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction, which was decreed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Deodar District: Banaskantha, on 27.01.2021. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2021, the respondent – State herein preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2021 before the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Deodar. The said appeal is pending for its adjudication. In the said Appeal, an application at Exhibit – 7 came to be filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the Code’).

4. It is further contended that the said application does not satisfy the test laid down under Order XLI Rule 27 of the code. The learned District Court, while granting the application, has observed that despite filing Written Statement and leading oral deposition, for reasons best known to the Government, the documentary evidence could not be produced. Therefore, an application under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) of the Code was allowed.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Iqbal Ahmed Vs. Abdul Shukoor reported in 2025(0) AIJEL-SC 75775 and contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that in cases where an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code is under consideration at the Appellate stage, it would be first necessary to examine the pleadings of party. The Court also must examine as to whether additional evidence sought to be led was supported by pleadings of defendant in written statement. In absence of necessary pleadings, permitting a party to lead additional evidence would result is an unnecessary exercise and such evidence, if led, would be of no consequences. It is therefore submitted that the learned District Court has, without applying the settled proposition of law, without assigning any reasons, allowed the application. It is submitted that allowing application, permitting respondent herein to produce additional evidence would lead to miscarriage of justice as Government has failed to lead any evidence during the Trial. A request is made by learned advocate for the petitioners that the order impugned be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded back to the learned District Court and the learned District Court may be directed to decide the Exhibit – 7 application afresh. Except above, no other submissions were made by learned advocate for petitioner.