JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. KAILASHWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This Civil appeal has been preferred by the Jaipur Development Authority against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in S. B. Civil First Appeal No. 19 of 1995, dated 10-12-1996. By that judgment, the High Court rejected an application filed by the appellant for leading "additional evidence" under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, in a pending first appeal on the ground that the appellant had not led any evidence in the trial Court. The Court took the above view following a decision of the Gauhati High Court in Md. Saifur Rahman v. State of Assam, AIR 1985 Gauhati 107, to the effect that the word additional in Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. meant the "joining or uniting one thing to another so as to form one aggregate" and that a party was disentitled to produce any additional evidence if he had not produced any evidence in the trial Court.

(3.) The facts are as follows:- The suit was filed by the respondent questioning certain land acquisition proceedings and seeking permanent injunction on the basis that the plaintiff was in possession. The appellant got impleaded in the trial Court as a defendant. The suit was decreed ex parte. Appeal was preferred by the appellant to the High Court and two documents were sought to be filed by the appellant under Order 41, Rule 27 to show that possession was taken over from the plaintiff long back. This application was rejected by the High Court on the ground that the appellant-defendant had not adduced any evidence in the trial Court. It is this order that is questioned in this appeal.