1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

JUDGMENT

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5269/2004

Abdul Ajij Vs. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors.

Date of Order :

21.02.2012

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

Mr. Arvind Bhardwaj, for the petitioner.

Mrs. Kamla Jain, for the respondents.

This petition has been filed against the order dated

28.03.2003, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereby

the Board of Revenue has held that RAA, Kota in the course of

hearing of an appeal against an order and decree dated

30.07.1987 passed by the Deputy District Collector, Kota had

mechanically and irregularly exercised its jurisdiction to allow

an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and take four

documents on record vide its order dated 04.08.1998.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and

perused the writ petition as also the impugned orders.

Order 41 Rule 27(1) CPC provides that the parties to

an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence,

whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. The

exception to the Rule has been stated in clause (a), (aa) and (b)

of sub-rule 1 aforesaid. For a party to file document in appeal

contrary to the prohibition of the main clause under Order 41

Rule 27(1) CPC, a specific case has to be made out and it has to

be established that notwithstanding the exercise of due

diligence, the evidence sought to be filed before the appellate

2

court was not within the knowledge of the party or could not

after the exercise of due diligence be produced by the party at

the time when the decree appealed against was passed. As

against the requirement of law the petitioner, as an appellant

before the RAA, merely sought to invoke Order 41 Rule 27 CPC

on a mechanical and apparently spurious ground that the

documents were being filed belated before the appellate

authority as they were suddenly found amongst a stack of old

papers. The Board of Revenue has rightly held that filing of

documents at a belated stage is an exception to the Rule as

detailed in Order 41 Rule 27(1) and that unless the situations

detailed in clauses (a), (aa) and (b) of Order 41 Rule 27(1) CPC

are made out, a document filed belatedly cannot be taken on

record. To say the least, the ground for invoking Order 41 Rule

27(1)(aa) CPC was not made out. The averment was wholly fake

without any material particulars and in my considered opinion

did not satisfy the ground for invoking exception to general Rule

as enunciated under Order 47 Rule 27(1) CPC. The exceptional

circumstances under clause (a), (aa) & (b) of Order 41 Rule 27

(1) CPC are not made out.

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is without

force and the same is dismissed. Stay application also stands

dismissed.

(ALOK SHARMA), J

MS/-

All corrections made in the

judgment/order have been incorporated

in the judgment/order being emailed.

- Manoj Solanki,

Jr. P.A.