Bhagwan Singh Yadav v. Indrajeet Singh And5 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging an order dated 23.3.2022 passed by Special Judge (M.P./M.L.A.), Allahabad in Civil Appeal No. 187 of 2011 (Umanath Bhartiya and another v. Raghuveer Singh and others), whereby application of the petitioner – defendant with regard to additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is rejected on the ground that same is not relevant. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned appellate court wrongfully interpreting the provisions of Sections 41 Rule 27 CPC has passed the order impugned. It is next submitted that the appellate court without hearing the appeal itself has proceeded and rejected the application for bringing the additional evidence on record. He next submits that relevance of envelop for the purposes evidence has nowhere been considered in the entire impugned order.

He has placed reliance on several judgements of Supreme Court including the judgement in the case of State of Rajasthan v. T.N. Sahani and others, (2001) 10 SCC 619. Relevant paragraph-4 of the said judgment reads thus: "4. It may be pointed out that this Court as long back as in 1963 in K.Venkataramiah v. Seetharama Reddy, AIR 1963 SC 1526 pointed out the scope of unamended provision of Order 41 Rule 27(c) that though there might well be cases where even though the court found that it was able to pronounce the judgment on the state of the record as it was, and so, additional evidence could not be required to enable it to pronounce the judgment, it still considered that in the interest of justice something which remained obscure should be filled up so that it could pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. This is entirely for the court to consider at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits whether looking into the documents which are sought to be filed as additional evidence, need be looked into to pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner.

If that be so, it is always open to the court to look into the documents and for that purpose amended provision of Order 41 Rule 27(b) CPC can be invoked. So the application under Order 41 Rule 27 should have been decided along with the appeal. Had the Court found the documents necessary to pronounce the judgment in the appeal in a more satisfactory manner it would have allowed the same; if not, the same would have been dismissed at that stage. But taking a view on the application before hearing of the appeal, in our view, would be inappropriate. Further the reason given for the dismissal of the application is untenable. The order under challenge cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The application is restored to its file. The High Court will now consider the appeal and the application and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. " In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, I find that the learned Special Judge ought to have heard the said application along with the civil appeal at the time of hearing.