IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 9 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 7573 of 2024 SMT. RAMPYARI SINGH AND OTHERS Versus BABULAL SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Uttarkarsh Agrawal - Advocate for the appellants. Shri Mahendra Pateriya - Advocate for the respondents.

Reserved on: 19.11.2025 Pronounced on: 09.12.2025 ORDER The present Misc. Appeal has been preferred under the provision of Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 whereby a challenge has been made to the order dated 20/09/2024 passed by learned Seventh Additional District Judge, Rewa in RCA No.83/2024. Vide impugned order dated 20/09/2024, the Court below has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents and remanded the matter to the trial Court to decide the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The facts of the case are that Late Shri Ramsudarshan Singh was the head of the family and died in the year 1986 leaving behind wife, three sons and three daughters. The appellants herein are the daughters and the respondents are sons of Late Shri Ramsudharshan Singh. Late Shri Ramsudhanarshan Singh owned and possessed various agricultural lands at Village- Bara Kothar. The record of the case reveals that certain revenue proceedings had taken place between the parties. The appellants expressed their wish to the defendants for grant of their share and partition of the family property, which was denied by the defendants.

3. The present appellants have preferred a civil suit claiming rights, title and interest over the suit property by filing a suit for partition bearing no.1800118 of 2013. The suit was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 06/07/2024. This judgment and decree was challenged by filing an Appeal bearing no.83 of 2024. During pendency of the appeal, the defendants- respondents herein, have filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for production of certain additional documents for just disposal of the appeal. The learned Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 20/09/2024 has remanded back the matter to the trial Court after setting aside the judgment and decree dated 06/07/2024.

Against the order of remand, the present appeal has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has opposed the impugned order, submitting that the order is illegal, arbitrary and against the settle principles of law. It is vehemently argued that the judgment and decree passed by the Court below are based on ample and overwhelming documents evidence and that a just and proper judgment and decree has been passed after due appreciation of evidence. It is further argued that passing the impugned order would allow the other side to fill up lacuna in their case. Lastly, it was argued that the respondents had filed the same application before the trial Court as well, but the same has not been considered by the Court below. A prayer for rejection of the application has been made.

5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order impugned submitting that the suit property has already been partitioned and thereafter the respective shares had been received by the defendants. It is further submitted that the documents filed along with the present application related to partition, ownership and possession of the lands in question. It is vehemently argued that the documents sought to be brought on record, are important and necessary for just disposal of the controversy.

6. The controversy in hand revolves around the provision of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads as under:-

27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.—(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 which ought to have