SANKARANARAYANAN Vs. RAMA GUPTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Second Appeals are connected and raise a common question of law. These were admitted on the question:

(2.) Since the appeals were admitted on this question and no other question of law was involved, this question alone was agitated at the bar. It was contended by the appellant's counsel that the right given to a party under O.41 R.27 was a valuable right and an improper exercise of jurisdiction vested under the said provision had worked to the detriment of the appellant, and that reception of additional evidence on proper grounds and consideration of such evidence either by the appellate court or on its direction by the Trial Court would have swung the case to the advantage of his party. Under O.41 R.27 (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence has to satisfy the court why the documents could not be produced earlier. If the appellate court is satisfied that the documents, have to be admitted, it shall do so after recording reasons. When an application for reception of additional document is made, the appellate court can proceed with the appeal only after passing orders on such application. Decision of the appeal without bestowing proper attention on the application for reception of additional evidence is bad in law.

(3.) The question for consideration is whether the question of law raised in the Second Appeals is a substantial question which deserves to be considered by this Court. It was contended by the respondents' counsel that this was not a substantial question of law. The appellate court was satisfied on the merits of the case that the appeal had to be dismissed and did not think it necessary to admit the documents as additional evidence. May be, that the order is not happily worded. The order "Appeal dismissed. Hence this LA. is also dismissed." was perhaps made inadvertently instead of dismissing the ' application and then dismissing the appeal; for, the Judge need not assign any reasons while dismissing the application. It was therefore contended that there was no need for remitting the case back to the appellate court for the mere formality of disposing of the application before disposing the appeal.