HABIBBHAI VAJIRBHAI MAREDIA Vs. NOORIBEN IBRAHIMBHAI CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of an order dated 21.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, 5th Fast Track Court, Palanpur allowing the application Exh:21 in Regular Civil Appeal No.1 of 2005 instituted by the present respondents for production of documents at the appellate stage under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("the C.P.C." for short). In the impugned order, the learned Appellate Judge has recorded the fact that in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court, the additional evidence should be allowed to be produced generally as a matter of course. It was also recorded that the genuineness of the documents, which was questioned by the petitioners, shall be decided at the time of final arguments.

(2.) IN the application Exh:21, the respondents pleaded of having secured possession of the documents after the final disposal of the suit and that the documents were not concocted and were available on the Government record and that in absence of the said documents, the right of the respondents would be prejudiced. On the above grounds, the powers of the Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. were invoked.

(3.) SUPPORTING the impugned order, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the impugned order has been properly passed by the learned Appellate Judge after taking into consideration the legal position. In his submission, the Court can itself require production of documents under Order 41 Rule 27 (1) of the C.P.C. if it is of the opinion that without such documents, the judgment could not be pronounced. In his submission, therefore, the question as to whether without such documents, a judgment can be pronounced or not, is required to be determined at the time of final hearing in view of Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and another (2012 (8) SCC 148), and therefore, it is premature to contend that the documents should be discarded. Similarly, reliance was placed upon K.R. Mohan Reddy Vs. Net Work Inc. (2007 (14) SCC 257), more particularly Paragraph18 with the submission that it is for the Appellate Court to decide as to whether such documents are necessary for pronouncing the judgment.