CHAITRAM PATEL Vs. DEENANATH PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Judge to the District Judge, Sarangarh, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), in Civil Appeal No. 29/ 2023 dtd. 8/4/2025, whereby the learned appellate Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that a suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title, permanent injunction and to declare the orders passed by the Tehsildar and SDO (R) null and void. He further submits that the Civil Suit was partly allowed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dtd. 28/3/2023. The petitioner preferred a regular appeal (Civil Appeal No. 29/2023) before the learned appellate Court against the aforesaid judgment and decree along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. He contends that the petitioner wanted to demonstrate his right over the suit property by filing certain documents but the learned appellate Court vide its order dtd. 8/4/2025 rejected the application for taking additional evidence on record, whereas the regular appeal remains pending. He further contends that the law in this regard is no more res-integra and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another,(2012) 8 SCC 148. has held that the Appellate Courts should decide the application for taking additional evidence on record at the stage of final hearing of the appeal.

(3.) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose. He submits that there is no infirmity in the order impugned.