Disposed

Debendra Suklabaidya v. Panubala Suklabaidya and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Jun 2020CRP(I/O)/434/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court revised an impugned order of the Civil Judge, Karimganj, which rejected a prayer to adduce additional evidence before the final hearing. The revision petition allowed, directing the lower appellate court to consider the prayer on merits at the time of final hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 01.09.2018 was set aside. The lower appellate court is directed to consider the application for adducing additional evidence at the time of final hearing.

Debendra Suklabaidya Vs Panubala Suklabaidya and 2… — Execution and Attachment | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010282842018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : CRP(I/O) 434/2018

¶5

1:DEBENDRA SUKLABAIDYA

¶6

S/O- LATE RAI CHARAN SUKLABAIDYA, R/O- VILL- KACHUBARI (NIAMURA), P.O- KURIKALA (LATU), P.O AND P.S- KARIMGANJ

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:PANUBALA SUKLABAIDYA AND 2 ORS.

¶9

W/O- LATE RAGESH BARDHAN, D/O- LATE RAJINI SUKLABAIDYA, R/OVILL- GARDARASHI, P.O- SADARASHI, P.S AND DIST- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN- 788710

¶10

2:BINOY SUKLABAIDYA S/O- LATE ASWINI SUKLABAIDYA R/O- VILL- KACHUBARI (NIAMURA) P.O- KURIKALA (LATU) P.S- AND DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710

¶11

3:ADHIR SUKLABAIDYA S/O- LATE ASWINI SUKLABAIDYA R/O- VILL- KACHUBARI (NIAMURA) P.O- KURIKALA (LATU) P.S- AND DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 78871

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P CHOUDHURY

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶16

ORDER

¶17

04.06.2020

¶18

Heard Mr. S. P. Coudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared for the respondents despite service of notice.

¶19

The order dated 01.09.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj

¶20

in Title Appeal No.05/2018 rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner/appellant to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage has been assailed in the present revision petition.

¶21

Mr. Choudhury submits that the prayer to adduce additional evidence was required to be considered by the learned Appellate Court at the stage of final hearing of the appeal. However, instead of doing so, the learned First Appellate Court had rejected the application prematurely and on totally untenable ground thereby resulting in serious prejudice to the interest of the petitioner.

¶22

Law is well settled that if an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC for adducing additional evidence at the appellate stage is made by a party, the application is required to be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence already brought on record. However, in the present case, I find that the application filed by the petitioner has been rejected even before the hearing of the appeal was conducted. Moreover, the observation recorded in the impugned order dated 01.09.2018 touches upon the merit of the claim of

¶23

the petitioner and therefore, it would have been more appropriate for the

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

learned Lower Appellate Court to consider the prayer in the application at the stage of final hearing of the appeal. I also find that one of the grounds on which the prayer was rejected is that the application was made to cause delay in disposal of the appeal.

¶26

Since the appellant is entitled to make a application to adduce additional evidence under the law and considering the mandate of law as noticed above, it is difficult to comprehend as to how such an application could be viewed merely as dilatory tactics by the appellant.

¶27

For the reasons stated herein above, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 01.09.2018 is unjustified in the eye of law. The same is accordingly set aside.

¶28

The learned Lower Appellate Court is directed to consider the application filed by the appellant for adducing additional evidence on its merit at the time of final hearing of the appeal.

¶29

Since the respondents are absent today, the petitioner to produce a certified copy of this order before the learned Lower Appellate Court within four weeks from today so as to enable the learned Civil Judge to fix a date of appearance in the appeal after notifying the other side.

¶30

Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Debendra Suklabaidya v. Panubala Suklabaidya and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Debendra Suklabaidya v. Panubala Suklabaidya and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Minati Paul Choudhury Vs Atindra Nath Dutta

Smti Bonita B. Dutta Vs M/S Magus Construction Private Limited and 5 Ors.

Mukul Lahkar Vs M/S. Om Infracon Pvt. Ltd.

Uddhab Das @ Uddab Das Vs M/S May Fair Developers and Builders and Anr.

Pradip Kr. Barman Vs Rupali Dutta

Krishna Gopal Karmakar Vs Janardhan Saha and 7 Ors.