Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application by appellants to produce a post-decree compromise as additional evidence in a pending title appeal, finding no merit under Article 227.
The writ application seeking permission to produce additional evidence in the pending appeal is 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8275 of 2012
3 12-01-2016 The petitioners are the appellants of Title Appeal No. 11 of 1994. They are aggrieved by the order dated 23.01.2010 passed by the Addl. District Judge, VI, Motihari, East Champaran in the said appeal. By the said order, the application of the petitioners filed under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, on contest, was rejected. Through the said application, the plaintiffs prayed for permitting them to produce additional evidence. It was stated that a compromise was entered between the respondent nos. 4 and 5 with the appellants which requires to be produced as additional evidence for consideration of the court. The appellate court having considered the submissions of both the party declined the said relief observing that such permission was not likely to result in final termination of the appeal as per the compromise. All parties thereto were not the signatories of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8275 of 2012 (3) dt.12-01-2016
2/2
compromise. Further, it has been noted that the application does not qualify to be allowed in view of the provision contained in the Order 41, Rule 27 CPC. It was not a case where the trial court had refused to admit the evidence. It was also not a case where the party seeking to produce additional evidence demonstrates that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence such evidence was not within his knowledge. In fact, the case of the plaintiffs-appellants was that subsequent to the decree passed by the trial court a compromise was entered between the plaintiffs and some of the defendants outside the court.
In exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the Court is not required to correct each and every mistake/error until it is demonstrably shown that serious prejudice shall be caused to the party or the order is wholly perverse. The appeal is pending disposal on the file of the appellate court since 1994.
Judging the case as above, this Court finds no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)
HR/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should permit additional evidence of a post-decree compromise to intervene in a pending title appeal under Article 227.
Whether the refusal by the lower appellate court to admit additional evidence was perverse given the delay in the appeal pending since 1994.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Satya Narain Gadodiya
Man Mohan Kumar Gadodiya
Pawan Kumar Gadodiya
Ram Pukar Singh
Raghvendra Kumar Singh
Parit Meena Devi
Kishore Kumar Mandal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
