SONA BAI Vs. MAHTARIN BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This plaintiff's second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC was admitted for hearing by formulating the following substantial questions of law: -

(2.) The plaintiff's suit for possession was dismissed by the trial Court after full-fledged hearing finding no merit against which the plaintiff preferred first appeal before the first appellate Court in which the defendants as well as the plaintiff, both, preferred application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for taking additional evidence on record. The defendants preferred B.(1) Kishtbandi Khatauni for the year 1954- 55 in order to demonstrate that Balbhadra - father of the plaintiff died prior to 1956 i.e. before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which was admitted by the first appellate Court as additional evidence and thereafter, without affording the other side i.e. the plaintiff to adduce evidence in rebuttal, relied upon the said document and further finally dismissed the first appeal, against which this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in which substantial questions of law have been formulated which have been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment. One of the substantial questions is with regard to taking additional document on record under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC.

(3.) Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein / plaintiff, would submit that the first appellate Court has misdirected itself in firstly granting application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and thereafter, taking into account such document on record, without putting the defendants to prove that document and thereafter without extending the opportunity to adduce evidence to the appellant herein / plaintiff in rebuttal on the principles of natural justice, considered the said document and admitted the same as additional document and dismissed the suit as well as the first appeal, therefore, the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court is liable to be set- aside.