The court dismissed the writ petition filed under Article 227 challenging the First Appellate Court's order allowing production of additional evidence. The court held it was justified to allow the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
Writ petition dismissed; First Appellate Court directed to dispose of the Appeal within three months.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
W.P. NO.15292 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
SRI PRABHUSWAMY S/O LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YERS, R/AT MALLIPATTANA, KIBBANAHALLY HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT 572114
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NAGARAJA S, ADVOCATE)
AND
SRI M.L. MAHESH @ MAHESHAIAH S/O LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT MALLIPATTANA, KIBBANAHALLY HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572114.
….RESPONDENT
(BY MISS VARSHA R IYENGAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL
2
JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR IN R.A.NO.52 OF 2011 AS PER ANNEXURE-G, IN THE ORDER ON I.A.NO.II.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the respondent is RA No.52 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur, challenging the order dated 15.03.2019, allowing the application-IA.II filed by the appellant.
seeking the relief of declaration and delivery of vacant possession in Original Suit No.324 of 2008 on the file of the trial Court and the said suit came to be dismissed by order dated 24.06.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed RA No.52 of 2011 before the First Appellate Court, challenging the judgment passed in Original Suit No.324 of 2008. He also filed an applicationIA.II under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission of the court to produce additional
3
documents and said application was resisted by the defendant. The First Appellate Court, after considering the material on record, by order dated 15.03.2019 allowed the application. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant has presented this writ petition.
the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the application filed along with the affidavit by the plaintiff as per Annexure-E and contended that the said application has been filed by the plaintiff without stating anything about the due diligence with regard to proposed documents to be filed by him. In this regard he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satish Kumar Gupta
And Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors reported in (2017) 4 SCC 760 and contended that the First Appellate
4
Court ought to have rejected the application filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, he sought interference of this Court.
5
self explanatory. It is the well established principle that the First Appellate Court has to decide the appeal in accordance with the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure and taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Santhosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (dead) by legal representatives reported in AIR 2001 SC 965 and it is also not in dispute that the First Appellate Court is last court to record finding on the facts, I am of the view that the First Appellate Court is justified in allowing IA.II filed by the plaintiff. I have also noticed that conditions for allowing the additional evidence to be produced before the First Appellate Court as per law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satish Kumar Gupta , supra, however, taking into consideration the factual aspects of the case and in terms of the reasons assigned in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the affidavit accompanying application in IA.II, I am of the view that the First Appellate Court is justified in allowing IA.II. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed . It is also argued in the bar that the Regular Appeal is of the year 2011 and
6
therefore, the First Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the Appeal within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/JUDGE
SB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in allowing the application for production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
Whether the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution should be dismissed in view of the discretionary power of the First Appellate Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satish Kumar Gupta and Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And OrsRelied on¶29
(2017) 4 SCC 760 · Who else cites this
Santhosh Hazari vs. Purushottam TiwariRelied on¶35
AIR 2001 SC 965 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI PRABHUSWAMY S/O LINGAPPA
SRI M.L. MAHESH
E.S. INDIRESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
