Skip to content


Raghunath Tripathy Vs. Dibakar Tripathy and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 224 of 1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1981Ori50; 51(1981)CLT28
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 41, Rule 27(1)
AppellantRaghunath Tripathy
RespondentDibakar Tripathy and ors.
Appellant AdvocateM. Patra, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateD.P. Mohapatra and ;Debabrata Das, Advs.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Cases Referred(Mahammad Baboo v. Sk. Naimulla).
Excerpt:
.....mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - he has failed to prove that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence he could not produce the document before the trial court......filed an application in the said title appeal to admit as additional evidence a registered deed of partition dated 17-8-1948 and a rent receipt dated 19-1-1979 which had not been filed in the trial court. it was alleged that the deed of partition was missing somewhere and was not traceableduring the trial of the suit. the application was opposed by the plaintiff-respondent.5. the learned subordinate judge rejected the application under order '41, rule 27, c. p. c. on 19-3-1980 holding that the rent receipt was irrelevant for the purpose of the petitioner's case and as such it could not be admitted as additional evidence. as regards the deed of partition, he held that by allowing it to be admitted in evidence, it would be nothing but filling up the lacuna of the defence. he.....
Judgment:
ORDER

P.K. Mohanti, J.

1. This civil revision has been preferred by defendant No. 1 against an order rejecting his application under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C.

2. Opposite party No. 1 as plaintiff brought Title Suit No. 59 of 1971 in the court of the Munsif, Kendrapara for a declaration of his right of way over plot No. 56 for going into and coming out of his homestead plot No. 44, for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 'from obstructing the plaintiff's right of way and for a mandatory injunction commanding defendant No. 1 to demolish the constructions raised by him on a portion of the suit land.

3. The stand taken by the petitioner was that he along with his co-sharers had taken lease of 0.03 acre of land out of the suit plot from the ex-landlord in the name of defendant No. 2 Daitari Tripathy who was then karta o'f the family. After family partition in the year 1948 the said 0.03 acre of land fell to the share of defendant No. 2 Daitari Tripathy and one Sara Dibya. Subsequently one Suma Dei, the daughter of Sara Dibya sold the share of her mother to defendant No. 6 Padmalav Tripathy who is the son o'f defendant No. 2. It was alleged that though the said 0.03 acre of land fell to the share of defendant No. 2 and Sara Dibya the petitioner was in possession of the same and subsequently he purchased the same by a registered sale deed dated 27-9-75.

4. The learned Munsif having decreed the plaintiff's suit, the petitioner preferred Title Appeal No. 9 of 1978 which is now sub judice before the learned Subordinate Judge of Kendrapara. On 12-3-1980, the petitioner filed an application in the said Title Appeal to admit as additional evidence a registered deed of partition dated 17-8-1948 and a rent receipt dated 19-1-1979 which had not been filed in the trial court. It was alleged that the deed of partition was missing somewhere and was not traceableduring the trial of the suit. The application was opposed by the plaintiff-respondent.

5. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the application under Order '41, Rule 27, C. P. C. on 19-3-1980 holding that the rent receipt was irrelevant for the purpose of the petitioner's case and as such it could not be admitted as additional evidence. As regards the deed of partition, he held that by allowing it to be admitted in evidence, it would be nothing but filling up the lacuna of the defence. He disbelieved the petitioner's allegation that the deed of partition was missing and was not traceable during the trial of the suit. He observed that it being a registered deed of partition the petitioner could have obtained a certified copy thereof and proved the same as secondary evidence if the original deed o'f partition was not traceable.

6. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Subordinate Judge exercised his jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity in rejecting the application under Order 41, Rule 27, C. P. C. before hearing of the appeal on merits. It is argued that the requirement of additional evidence must be of the appellate court itself and the legitimate occasion for the exercise of the power under Order 41. Rule 27, C. P. C. is when, on examining the evidence as it stands, some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent and the appellate court is unable to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced.

7. Order 41, Rule 27. C. P. C. reads as follows:

'27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court:

(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

(aa) 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 byhim 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.'

8. Undoubtedly, under Sub-rule (1) (b) the Court may allow additional evidence when it requires any document to be produced to enable it to pronounce the judgment. But the scope of Sub-rule (1) (aa) is different. Under this sub-rule the fact that the additional evidence sought to be adduced was not, despite due diligence, within the knowledge of the party or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed is made a ground for admission of such evidence. This sub-rule is independent and is not controlled by Sub-rule (1) (b). Thus, the question of admission of additional evidence under Sub-rule (1) (aa) does not depend on the requirement of the appellate court. This sub-rule en lables a party to adduce additional evidence if he satisfies the Court that he exercised due diligence and the new evidence was not within his knowledge or it could not be produced by him at the time when the decree under appeal was passed.

9. In the present case, the petitioner sought to invoke the powers of the Court under Sub-rule (1) (aa). In order to take advantage of this sub-rule a party should show that the evidence sought to be adduced could not with reasonable care and diligence have been produced before the Trial Court.

10. If we examine the facts of this case, we find that the deed of partition to which the petitioner was a party was registered on 17-8-1948 and the decree under appeal was passed on 30-1-1978. The petitioner being a party to the document was aware of its existence. So, he should have made adequate attempt at the proper time to prove the original document or at least a certified copy thereof as secondary evidence it the original document was not traceable. Noattempt, whatsoever, was made by him to produce such evidence. He was required to prove strictly the diligence he claimed to have exercised. He has failed to prove that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence he could not produce the document before the Trial Court. When there is want of diligence no additional evidence can be permitted. Thus, Sub-rule (1) (aa) which embodies the Orissa Amendment to Order 41, Rule 27, C. P. C. cannot be attracted to this case. I am supported in this view by a decision of this Court reported in (1971) 2 Cut WR 357 (Mahammad Baboo v. Sk. Naimulla).

11. Moreover, it appears that the suit out of which the appeal arises is for declaration of a right of way. The deed of partition sought to be produced would merely show that 0.03 acre out of the suit plot was allotted to the share of defendant No. 2 Daityari Tripathy and one Sara Dibya. It will not be material to the issue before the Court.

12. In the premises aforesaid, the learned Subordinate Judge was justified in rejecting the application under Order 41. Rule 27, C. P. C.

13. There is no merit in this Civil Revision and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //