In a writ petition under Article 227, the court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to an appellate court's order rejecting additional evidence. The court held the order was legal as the petitioner knew of the document before the suit was filed.
The writ petition challenging the rejection of additional evidence was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 40
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4399 of 2019
Petitioner :- Pyare Lal Respondent :- Khushmatti Devi And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Mishra
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant petition is directed against the order dated 26.4.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 109/2009 whereby the appellate Court has rejected the application 20Ga2 filed by the petitioner for admitting additional evidence in exercise of power under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC.
The petitioner, by means of the application in question, wants to bring on record Dakhalnama/Commissioner's report of Original Suit No. 494/1975. The said report is of the year 1983. The suit itself was instituted in the year 1987 and was decreed in the year 2009. Thus, the documents sought to be brought on record before the appellate Court was in existence even before the institution of the suit. The ground taken by the petitioner for leading additional evidence was that his previous counsel did not advise him to file the said report. In appeal, when he engaged a new counsel, he was advised to file Commissioner's report/Dakhalnama and thereafter the application was filed.
The appellate Court has held that none of the grounds stipulated under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC are made out to warrant admitting the documents in additional evidence.
Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the document in question was through out in the knowledge of the petitioner. In fact, it was in existence even before the suit was filed. The object of Order 41, Rule 27 CPC is not to enable a party to fill lacuna in evidence. Consequently, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order to warrant interference in exercise of
supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 12.7.2019 AM/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Article 227 of the Constitution warrants interference with the appellate court's order rejecting the admission of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
Whether the petitioner's lack of instruction to file a report at the time of the trial constitutes a sufficient ground to admit additional evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pyare Lal
Khushmatti Devi
Manoj Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
