High Court
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has assailed the order dated 10.02.2025 by which the Appellate Court has rejected the application 25 (ग) of the petitioner for taking additional evidence on record.
3. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Appellate Court on flimsy ground and without appreciating the correct facts has rejected the application 25 (ग). It is further contended that the petitioner has made out a case for taking the additional evidence on record and yet the Appellate Court has refused to take the additional evidence on record.
4. It is contended that the law is settled that the application for taking the additional evidence on record should have been decided by the Appellate Court at the time of filing of the appeal and therefore, the application could not have been decided prematurely before hearing of the appeal.
5. Be that as it may, in the instant case, it would be apposite to reproduce paragraphs No.3 and 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the application for taking additional evidence:- "3. यह ककि बयननामना कदिननानांककित 21/07/1981 किकी सत्य प्रकतललिकपि शपिथकितनार्ता नने अपिनने अलधिवकना कनयनाज अहमदि किको आवश्यकि किनायर्तावनाहही किरनने हनेततु लिने जनाकिर कदियना थना। शही कनयनाज अहमदि एडवकोकिने ट नने बयननामना कदिननानांककित 21/07/1981 किको कदिननानांकि 30/10/2021 किको ससूचही दनारना लसकवलि जज सही०कड०, किनानपितुर नगर किने न्यनायनालिय मम रनेण्ट किने स ननां 0-96 सनन् 2016 मको० शरहीफ बननाम हसरत अलिही मम दिनालखिलि किर कदियना थना। 4. यह ककि अधिहीनस्थ न्यनायनालिय दनारना शपिथकितनार्ता किकी ओर सने दिनालखिलि ककियने गयने बयननामना कदिननानांककित 21/07/1981 किने उपिरनान्तन् सनाक्ष्य प्रस्ततुत किरनने किना किकोई भही अवसर प्रदिनान नहह ककियना गयना और बहस सतुनकिर मतुकिदिमम किना कनस्तनारण किर कदियना गयना , इसललिए शपिथकितनार्ता अधिहीनस्थ न्यनायनालिय मम अपिनना अकतररक सनाक्ष्य शपिथपित्र दिनालखिलि नहह किर सकिना।" 6. In the above paragraphs, it has been stated by the petitioner that sale deed dated 21.07.1981 as an evidence was filed. Thereafter, the trial Court fixed the matter for hearing and decided the case. Thus, the petitioner has not been given any opportunity to file the evidence by the Trial Court. The avrements made in the affidavit are vague inasmuch as it does not state as to whether the petitioner had sought time from the Trial Court to file the affidavit. The affidavit lacks the aforesaid pleading.
7. Further, the Appellate Court has recorded a categorical finding that the evidence filed by the petitioner had been taken by the trial Court and there is nothing on record of the trial Court to indicate that the petitioner ever submitted any application before the Trial Court for filing affidavit. The Appellate Court further recorded a finding that petitioner had ample opportunity to file affidavit. The relevant paragraph No.12 of the order rejecting the application 25 ग is reproduced herein below:- "12. पित्रनावलिही किने अवलिकोकिन सने यह स्पिष्ट हकोतना हहै ककि अपिहीलिनाथर्थी दनारना प्रनाथर्ताननापित्र अवर न्यनायनालिय मम इस आशय सने प्रस्ततुत ककियना गयना थना ककि भवन स्वनामही किने गवनाह किकी हहैलसयत सने शही महबसूब अलिही नने कदिननानांकि 18.10.2021 किको अपिनना शपिथपित्र कबनना प्रनाथर्ताननापित्र किने दिनालखिलि ककियना थना, लजसकिने ररबटलि मम सनाक्ष्य मम अपिहीलिनाथर्थी दनारना किनागजही सनाक्ष्य दिनालखिलि ककियना जनानना न्यनायकहत मम आवश्यकि हहै। अपिहीलिनाथर्थी दनारना ललिस्ट कदिननानांककित 30.10.2021 किने दनारना दिनालखिलि किकी जना रहही किनागजही सनाक्ष्य किको ररकिनाडर्ता पिर लिनेकिर उसने सनाक्ष्य मम पिढने जनानने किना आदिनेश पिनाररत ककियना जनाए। अवर न्यनायनालिय दनारना कदिननानांकि 30.10.2021 किको आदिनेश पिनाररत किरतने हहए अपिहीलिनाथर्थी किना प्रनाथर्ताननापित्र किको हजर्ता पिर स्वहीकिनार किर प्रपित्र न्यनायकहत मम पित्रनावललित ककियना गयना। इस प्रकिनार अपिहीलिनाथर्थी किने किनागजही सनाक्ष्य किको ररकिनाडर्ता पिर सनाक्ष्य किने रूपि मम ललियना गयना। कदिननानांकि 30.10.2021 सने लिनेकिर कदिननानांकि 04.04.2022 तकि पित्रनावलिही पिर किई कतलथयनानां कनयत किकी गई लजसमम उभयपिकक्षों किकी बहस सतुनही गई , पिरन्ततु अपिहीलिनाथर्थी दनारना सनाक्ष्य शपिथपित्र दिनालखिलि ककियने जनानने हनेततु किकोई प्रनाथर्ताननापित्र यना इससने सनांबनांलधित किकोई प्रपित्र पित्रनावलिही पिर उपिलिब्धि नहह हहै। अपिहीलिनाथर्थी दनारना दिनालखिलि ककियने गयने किनागजही सनाक्ष्य किको अवर न्यनायनालिय दनारना ररकिनाडर्ता पिर ललियना जना चतुकिना हहै, लजसकिने उपिरनान्त अपिहीलिनाथर्थी दनारना सनाक्ष्य शपिथपित्र दिनालखिलि ककियने जनानने किना तथ्य कनणर्ताय किकी कतलथ तकि नहह आयना हहै , जबककि अपिहीलिनाथर्थी किने पिनास पियनार्ताप्त अवसर थना। यकदि अपिहीलिनाथर्थी किकोई सनाक्ष्य शपिथपित्र दिनेनने किना इच्छतु कि थना , तको वह अवश्य इस सनांबनांधि मम प्रस्ततुत किरतना।" 8. In such view of the fact, the finding returned by the Appellate Court in rejecting the application 25 ग of the petitioner is a finding of fact. This Court also finds that the petitioner has failed to make out any case under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to take the additional evidence on record.
9. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the application for taking additional evidence on record ought to have been considered at the final stage of the hearing is concerned, this Court finds that the petitioner has pressed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Further, the Appellate Court in detail has considered the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The disposal of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by Appellate Court at this stage has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner failed to establish any illegality committed by the trial Court in rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, therefore, the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived and the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Imrahim Uddin and another, (2012) 8 SCC 148 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the facts of the present case is not applicable .
10. Thus, for the reasons given above, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly is dismissed. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 SSharma
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has assailed the order dated 10.02.2025 by which the Appellate Court has rejected the application 25 (ग) of the petitioner for taking additional evidence on record.
3. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Appellate Court on flimsy ground and without appreciating the correct facts has rejected the application 25 (ग). It is further contended that the petitioner has made out a case for taking the additional evidence on record and yet the Appellate Court has refused to take the additional evidence on record.
4. It is contended that the law is settled that the application for taking the additional evidence on record should have been decided by the Appellate Court at the time of filing of the appeal and therefore, the application could not have been decided prematurely before hearing of the appeal.
5. Be that as it may, in the instant case, it would be apposite to reproduce paragraphs No.3 and 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the application for taking additional evidence:- "3. यह ककि बयननामना कदिननानांककित 21/07/1981 किकी सत्य प्रकतललिकपि शपिथकितनार्ता नने अपिनने अलधिवकना कनयनाज अहमदि किको आवश्यकि किनायर्तावनाहही किरनने हनेततु लिने जनाकिर कदियना थना। शही कनयनाज अहमदि एडवकोकिने ट नने बयननामना कदिननानांककित 21/07/1981 किको कदिननानांकि 30/10/2021 किको ससूचही दनारना लसकवलि जज सही०कड०, किनानपितुर नगर किने न्यनायनालिय मम रनेण्ट किने स ननां 0-96 सनन् 2016 मको० शरहीफ बननाम हसरत अलिही मम दिनालखिलि किर कदियना थना। 4. यह ककि अधिहीनस्थ न्यनायनालिय दनारना शपिथकितनार्ता किकी ओर सने दिनालखिलि ककियने गयने बयननामना कदिननानांककित 21/07/1981 किने उपिरनान्तन् सनाक्ष्य प्रस्ततुत किरनने किना किकोई भही अवसर प्रदिनान नहह ककियना गयना और बहस सतुनकिर मतुकिदिमम किना कनस्तनारण किर कदियना गयना , इसललिए शपिथकितनार्ता अधिहीनस्थ न्यनायनालिय मम अपिनना अकतररक सनाक्ष्य शपिथपित्र दिनालखिलि नहह किर सकिना।" 6. In the above paragraphs, it has been stated by the petitioner that sale deed dated 21.07.1981 as an evidence was filed. Thereafter, the trial Court fixed the matter for hearing and decided the case. Thus, the petitioner has not been given any opportunity to file the evidence by the Trial Court. The avrements made in the affidavit are vague inasmuch as it does not state as to whether the petitioner had sought time from the Trial Court to file the affidavit. The affidavit lacks the aforesaid pleading.
7. Further, the Appellate Court has recorded a categorical finding that the evidence filed by the petitioner had been taken by the trial Court and there is nothing on record of the trial Court to indicate that the petitioner ever submitted any application before the Trial Court for filing affidavit. The Appellate Court further recorded a finding that petitioner had ample opportunity to file affidavit. The relevant paragraph No.12 of the order rejecting the application 25 ग is reproduced herein below:- "12. पित्रनावलिही किने अवलिकोकिन सने यह स्पिष्ट हकोतना हहै ककि अपिहीलिनाथर्थी दनारना प्रनाथर्ताननापित्र अवर न्यनायनालिय मम इस आशय सने प्रस्ततुत ककियना गयना थना ककि भवन स्वनामही किने गवनाह किकी हहैलसयत सने शही महबसूब अलिही नने कदिननानांकि 18.10.2021 किको अपिनना शपिथपित्र कबनना प्रनाथर्ताननापित्र किने दिनालखिलि ककियना थना, लजसकिने ररबटलि मम सनाक्ष्य मम अपिहीलिनाथर्थी दनारना किनागजही सनाक्ष्य दिनालखिलि ककियना जनानना न्यनायकहत मम आवश्यकि हहै। अपिहीलिनाथर्थी दनारना ललिस्ट कदिननानांककित 30.10.2021 किने दनारना दिनालखिलि किकी जना रहही किनागजही सनाक्ष्य किको ररकिनाडर्ता पिर लिनेकिर उसने सनाक्ष्य मम पिढने जनानने किना आदिनेश पिनाररत ककियना जनाए। अवर न्यनायनालिय दनारना कदिननानांकि 30.10.2021 किको आदिनेश पिनाररत किरतने हहए अपिहीलिनाथर्थी किना प्रनाथर्ताननापित्र किको हजर्ता पिर स्वहीकिनार किर प्रपित्र न्यनायकहत मम पित्रनावललित ककियना गयना। इस प्रकिनार अपिहीलिनाथर्थी किने किनागजही सनाक्ष्य किको ररकिनाडर्ता पिर सनाक्ष्य किने रूपि मम ललियना गयना। कदिननानांकि 30.10.2021 सने लिनेकिर कदिननानांकि 04.04.2022 तकि पित्रनावलिही पिर किई कतलथयनानां कनयत किकी गई लजसमम उभयपिकक्षों किकी बहस सतुनही गई , पिरन्ततु अपिहीलिनाथर्थी दनारना सनाक्ष्य शपिथपित्र दिनालखिलि ककियने जनानने हनेततु किकोई प्रनाथर्ताननापित्र यना इससने सनांबनांलधित किकोई प्रपित्र पित्रनावलिही पिर उपिलिब्धि नहह हहै। अपिहीलिनाथर्थी दनारना दिनालखिलि ककियने गयने किनागजही सनाक्ष्य किको अवर न्यनायनालिय दनारना ररकिनाडर्ता पिर ललियना जना चतुकिना हहै, लजसकिने उपिरनान्त अपिहीलिनाथर्थी दनारना सनाक्ष्य शपिथपित्र दिनालखिलि ककियने जनानने किना तथ्य कनणर्ताय किकी कतलथ तकि नहह आयना हहै , जबककि अपिहीलिनाथर्थी किने पिनास पियनार्ताप्त अवसर थना। यकदि अपिहीलिनाथर्थी किकोई सनाक्ष्य शपिथपित्र दिनेनने किना इच्छतु कि थना , तको वह अवश्य इस सनांबनांधि मम प्रस्ततुत किरतना।" 8. In such view of the fact, the finding returned by the Appellate Court in rejecting the application 25 ग of the petitioner is a finding of fact. This Court also finds that the petitioner has failed to make out any case under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to take the additional evidence on record.
9. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the application for taking additional evidence on record ought to have been considered at the final stage of the hearing is concerned, this Court finds that the petitioner has pressed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Further, the Appellate Court in detail has considered the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The disposal of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by Appellate Court at this stage has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner failed to establish any illegality committed by the trial Court in rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, therefore, the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived and the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Imrahim Uddin and another, (2012) 8 SCC 148 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the facts of the present case is not applicable .
10. Thus, for the reasons given above, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly is dismissed. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 SSharma