This revision petition under Article 226 CPC was filed to set aside an order rejecting an application to adduce additional evidence in an appeal. The High Court found no infirmity as the land was railway property, making title proof irrelevant for the eviction case.
Petition dismissing and disposed of accordingly.
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.
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010043352023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/62/2023
SRI SRI SADHU DAS
R/O PUJADUBI, BLOCK NO. 1, JORHAT TOWN, P.O. AND P.S. AND DISTJORHAT, PIN-785001
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAYS, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI-11, DIST-KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
2:THE GENERAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAYS MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 DIST-KAMRUP (M) ASSAM
3:THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAYS TINSUKHIA DIST-TINSUKHIA ASSAM PIN-786125
4:THE ESTATE OFFICER N.F. RAILWAYS TINSUKHIA DIST-TINSUKHIA ASSAM PIN-786125
5:THE SENIOR SECTION OFFICER N.F. RAILWAY MORIANI
Page No.# 2/7
DIST-JORHAT PIN-785001
6:THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER N.F. RAILWAY MORIANI DIST-JORHAT PIN-78563
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS F AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
ORDER
Date : 20.03.2023
Heard Ms. F. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned CGS.
Page No.# 3/7
Page No.# 4/7
Section 5 of the Eviction Act. Thereafter, the petitioner on receipt of the notice filed an appeal before the court of learned District Judge, Jorhat. During pendency of the appeal, petition No. 943/2022 was filed before the learned District Judge, Jorhat to adduce additional evidence which was rejected. Hence, this petition.
Page No.# 5/7
part and parcel of the land involved in previously initiated proceeding against the land of the petitioner i.e. Monika Ghosh and pending proceeding of Eviction Case No. EO/TSK/Land/1651/2018 against the other heirs of the petitioner and it was informed that the land in the appeal is the part and parcel of the land involved in the previously initiated proceeding against Monica Ghosh and her heirs.
"(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if --
(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or
(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.
(2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission."
Page No.# 6/7
has the power to allow the document to be produced and a witness to be examined but the requirement of law is that if the court finds it necessary to obtain such evidence to enable it to pronounce a judgment. The provision does not entitle the appellate court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can pronounce judgment in a case. Hence, in the absence of satisfactory reasons for the non-production of the evidence in the trial court, additional evidence should not be admitted in appeal. It has also been held that the words 'for other substantial cause', must be read with the word 'required' in the beginning of the sentence, so, it is only where for substantial cause the appellate court requires additional evidence then this rule will apply.
"36. The general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The appellate court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, the provision does not apply, when on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the court and is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed by the limitation specified in the Rule itself.
Page No.# 7/7
taking additional evidence on record at a belated stage cannot be filed as a matter of right. The court can consider such an application with circumspection, provided it is covered under either of the prerequisite conditions incorporated in the statutory provisions itself. The discretion is to be exercised by the court judicially taking into consideration the relevance of the document in respect of the issues involved in the case and the circumstances under which such an evidence could not be led in the court below and as to whether the applicant had prosecuted his case before the court below diligently and as to whether such evidence is required to pronounce the judgment by the appellate court.”
JUDGE Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision in appeal against the rejection of an application for adducing additional evidence was maintainable under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.
Whether the District Judge acted illegally in refusing to allow the petitioner to examine official witnesses in the appellate stage.
Whether additional evidence was required to pronounce judgment in the eviction and civil appeal proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India vs Ibrahim Uddin and AnrReferred¶42
(2012) 8 SCC 148 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI SADHU DAS
UNION OF INDIA
GENERAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAYS MALIGAON
MALASRI NANDI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
