High Court · 2025

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 कदिननााሪककित 21/07/1981 किकी सत्य ्ቚकतललिकपि शपिथकितनाቔኋ नने अपिनने अलधिवकना कनयनाज अहमदि किको आवश्यकि किनायቔኋवनाहही किरनने हनेततु लिने जनाकिर कदियना थना। शही कनयनाज अहमदि एडवकोकिने ट नने बयननामना कदिननााሪककित 21/07/1981 किको कदिननााሪकि 30/10/2021 किको ससूचही दनारना लसकवलि जज सही०कड०, किनानपितुर नगर किने न्यनायनालिय मम रनेण्ट किने स नाሪ 0-96 सनन् 2016 मको० शरहीफ बननाम हसरत अलिही मम दिनालखिलि किर कदियना थना।

4. यह ककि अधिहीनस्थ न्यनायनालिय दनारना शपिथकितनाቔኋ किकी ओर सने दिनालखिलि ककियने गयने बयननामना कदिननााሪककित 21/07/1981 किने उपिरनान्तन् सनाቌኚय ्ቚस्ततुत किरनने किना किकोई भही अवसर ्ቚदिनान नहह ककियना गयना और बहस सतुनकिर मतुकिदिमम किना कनस्तनारण किर कदियना गयना , इसललिए शपिथकितनाቔኋ अधिहीनस्थ न्यनायनालिय मम अपिनना अकतररक सनाቌኚय शपिथपि्ቔ 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. पि्ቔनावलिही किने अवलिकोकिन सने यह स्पि्ቖ हकोतना हहै ककि अपिहीलिनाथቕኍ दनारना ्ቚनाथቔኋननापि्ቔ अवर न्यनायनालिय मम इस आशय सने ्ቚस्ततुत ककियना गयना थना ककि भवन स्वनामही किने गवनाह किकी हहैलसयत सने शही महबसूब अलिही नने कदिननााሪकि 18.10.2021 किको अपिनना शपिथपि्ቔ कबनना ्ቚनाथቔኋननापि्ቔ किने दिनालखिलि ककियना थना, लजसकिने ररबटलि मम सनाቌኚय मम अपिहीलिनाथቕኍ दनारना किनागजही सनाቌኚय दिनालखिलि ककियना जनानना न्यनायकहत मम आवश्यकि हहै। अपिहीलिनाथቕኍ दनारना ललिस्ट कदिननााሪककित 30.10.2021 किने दनारना दिनालखिलि किकी जना रहही किनागजही सनाቌኚय किको ररकिनाडቔኋ पिर लिनेकिर उसने सनाቌኚय मम पिढने जनानने किना आदिनेश पिनाररत ककियना जनाए। अवर न्यनायनालिय दनारना कदिननााሪकि 30.10.2021 किको आदिनेश पिनाररत किरतने हहए अपिहीलिनाथቕኍ किना ्ቚनाथቔኋननापि्ቔ किको हजቔኋ पिर स्वहीकिनार किर ्ቚपि्ቔ न्यनायकहत मम पि्ቔनावललित ककियना गयना। इस ्ቚकिनार अपिहीलिनाथቕኍ किने किनागजही सनाቌኚय किको ररकिनाडቔኋ पिर सनाቌኚय किने रूपि मम ललियना गयना। कदिननााሪकि

30.10.2021 सने लिनेकिर कदिननााሪकि 04.04.2022 तकि पि्ቔनावलिही पिर किई कतलथयनााሪ कनयत किकी गई लजसमम उभयपिकኘ᭎ किकी बहस सतुनही गई , पिरन्ततु अपिहीलिनाथቕኍ दनारना सनाቌኚय शपिथपि्ቔ दिनालखिलि ककियने जनानने हनेततु किकोई ्ቚनाथቔኋननापि्ቔ यना इससने साሪबाሪलधित किकोई ्ቚपि्ቔ पि्ቔनावलिही पिर उपिलिब्धि नहह हहै। अपिहीलिनाथቕኍ दनारना दिनालखिलि ककियने गयने किनागजही सनाቌኚय किको अवर न्यनायनालिय दनारना ररकिनाडቔኋ पिर ललियना जना चतुकिना हहै, लजसकिने उपिरनान्त अपिहीलिनाथቕኍ दनारना सनाቌኚय शपिथपि्ቔ दिनालखिलि ककियने जनानने किना तथ्य कनणቔኋय किकी कतलथ तकि नहह आयना हहै , जबककि अपिहीलिनाथቕኍ किने पिनास पियनाቔኋ्቎ अवसर थना। यकदि अपिहीलिनाथቕኍ किकोई सनाቌኚय शपिथपि्ቔ दिनेनने किना इच्छतु कि थना , तको वह अवश्य इस साሪबाሪधि मम ्ቚस्ततुत 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 SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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 कदिननााሪककित 21/07/1981 किकी सत्य ्ቚकतललिकपि शपिथकितनाቔኋ नने अपिनने अलधिवकना कनयनाज अहमदि किको आवश्यकि किनायቔኋवनाहही किरनने हनेततु लिने जनाकिर कदियना थना। शही कनयनाज अहमदि एडवकोकिने ट नने बयननामना कदिननााሪककित 21/07/1981 किको कदिननााሪकि 30/10/2021 किको ससूचही दनारना लसकवलि जज सही०कड०, किनानपितुर नगर किने न्यनायनालिय मम रनेण्ट किने स नाሪ 0-96 सनन् 2016 मको० शरहीफ बननाम हसरत अलिही मम दिनालखिलि किर कदियना थना।

4. यह ककि अधिहीनस्थ न्यनायनालिय दनारना शपिथकितनाቔኋ किकी ओर सने दिनालखिलि ककियने गयने बयननामना कदिननााሪककित 21/07/1981 किने उपिरनान्तन् सनाቌኚय ्ቚस्ततुत किरनने किना किकोई भही अवसर ्ቚदिनान नहह ककियना गयना और बहस सतुनकिर मतुकिदिमम किना कनस्तनारण किर कदियना गयना , इसललिए शपिथकितनाቔኋ अधिहीनस्थ न्यनायनालिय मम अपिनना अकतररक सनाቌኚय शपिथपि्ቔ 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. पि्ቔनावलिही किने अवलिकोकिन सने यह स्पि्ቖ हकोतना हहै ककि अपिहीलिनाथቕኍ दनारना ्ቚनाथቔኋननापि्ቔ अवर न्यनायनालिय मम इस आशय सने ्ቚस्ततुत ककियना गयना थना ककि भवन स्वनामही किने गवनाह किकी हहैलसयत सने शही महबसूब अलिही नने कदिननााሪकि 18.10.2021 किको अपिनना शपिथपि्ቔ कबनना ्ቚनाथቔኋननापि्ቔ किने दिनालखिलि ककियना थना, लजसकिने ररबटलि मम सनाቌኚय मम अपिहीलिनाथቕኍ दनारना किनागजही सनाቌኚय दिनालखिलि ककियना जनानना न्यनायकहत मम आवश्यकि हहै। अपिहीलिनाथቕኍ दनारना ललिस्ट कदिननााሪककित 30.10.2021 किने दनारना दिनालखिलि किकी जना रहही किनागजही सनाቌኚय किको ररकिनाडቔኋ पिर लिनेकिर उसने सनाቌኚय मम पिढने जनानने किना आदिनेश पिनाररत ककियना जनाए। अवर न्यनायनालिय दनारना कदिननााሪकि 30.10.2021 किको आदिनेश पिनाररत किरतने हहए अपिहीलिनाथቕኍ किना ्ቚनाथቔኋननापि्ቔ किको हजቔኋ पिर स्वहीकिनार किर ्ቚपि्ቔ न्यनायकहत मम पि्ቔनावललित ककियना गयना। इस ्ቚकिनार अपिहीलिनाथቕኍ किने किनागजही सनाቌኚय किको ररकिनाडቔኋ पिर सनाቌኚय किने रूपि मम ललियना गयना। कदिननााሪकि

30.10.2021 सने लिनेकिर कदिननााሪकि 04.04.2022 तकि पि्ቔनावलिही पिर किई कतलथयनााሪ कनयत किकी गई लजसमम उभयपिकኘ᭎ किकी बहस सतुनही गई , पिरन्ततु अपिहीलिनाथቕኍ दनारना सनाቌኚय शपिथपि्ቔ दिनालखिलि ककियने जनानने हनेततु किकोई ्ቚनाथቔኋननापि्ቔ यना इससने साሪबाሪलधित किकोई ्ቚपि्ቔ पि्ቔनावलिही पिर उपिलिब्धि नहह हहै। अपिहीलिनाथቕኍ दनारना दिनालखिलि ककियने गयने किनागजही सनाቌኚय किको अवर न्यनायनालिय दनारना ररकिनाडቔኋ पिर ललियना जना चतुकिना हहै, लजसकिने उपिरनान्त अपिहीलिनाथቕኍ दनारना सनाቌኚय शपिथपि्ቔ दिनालखिलि ककियने जनानने किना तथ्य कनणቔኋय किकी कतलथ तकि नहह आयना हहै , जबककि अपिहीलिनाथቕኍ किने पिनास पियनाቔኋ्቎ अवसर थना। यकदि अपिहीलिनाथቕኍ किकोई सनाቌኚय शपिथपि्ቔ दिनेनने किना इच्छतु कि थना , तको वह अवश्य इस साሪबाሪधि मम ्ቚस्ततुत 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 SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad