Advocates:
['AMAR KR SINHA', '', 'SANDEEP VERMA', 'MD SAULAT DAUD', 'KUNDAN KR AMBASTHA', 'SUMIT KUMAR']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No.5472 of 2017

---------

Krishna Kumar Gupta, S/o late Gurdeo Lal ………

Petitioner

Versus

Md. Aarif, S/o Md. Taiyab

……….

Respondent

---------

CORAM

: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

---------

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, Advocate

For the Respondents

:

---

06/01.05.2019

The writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, whereby and whereunder order dated 04.04.2017 passed in Title

Appeal No.70 of 2015, by which, petition under Order 41 Rule 27 read

with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for allowing the petitioner to file

additional evidence at the appellate stage, has been rejected.

2.

The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that a suit for

eviction being Title (Eviction) Suit No.50 of 2008, has been filed by the

plaintiff/petitioner before the Munsif, Dhanbad praying therein a

decree for ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises on the

ground of default in making payment of rent under the provision of

Section 11(1)(d) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction)

Control Act, 2001, by which, suit was dismissed, against which, title

appeal has been preferred being Title Appeal No.70 of 2015 before the

District Judge, Dhanbad, at this stage, a petition under Order 41 Rule

27 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. and under Order 7 Rule 14(3)

read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for tendering the certified copy of

the assessment list of the municipality and the certified copy of lease

deed by way of additional evidence has been sought to be

incorporated but the same, has been rejected vide order dated

04.04.2017, against which, the present writ petition has been filed

invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

3.

The ground as has been agitated in assailing the order dated

04.04.2017 that the said document is necessary for proper adjudication

of the issue, since the appeal is in continuation with the original

2

proceeding, therefore, the documents have been incorporated by

allowing the said petition for further adjudication of the suit but

having not done so, illegality has been committed by the trial Court by

passing the order impugned.

4.

This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner

and going across the factual aspect involved in this case as also

looking to the provision of Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C., whereby and

whereunder, the provision has been made to adduce the additional

evidence on the following grounds i.e.:-

(a) Whether the Court from which degree the appeal is preferred

has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been

admitted or

(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence

establishes that in spite of exercise of due diligence such

evidence was not within his knowledge

(b) The appellate court required any documents to be produced

or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce

judgment or for any other substantial cause.

(c) The appellate court may allow such evidence or document to

be produced or witness to be examined.

5.

Therefore, only if the above condition would arise, the

additional evidence is directed to be incorporated by the trial Court

under the provision of Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. but from

perusal of the impugned order it appears that no such ground has

been agitated, save and except the stand that the document is a public

document, therefore, it may be incorporated.

It is evident from the impugned order that the

petitioner/defendant to the title suit although has filed written

statement but in support of that, no document was filed and at the

stage of appeal, certain document has been sought to be

incorporated but without assigning any reason and without having

any ground to incorporate the additional evide