MALTA GOUNDER Vs. APPUKUTTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This revision petition is directed Against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Sankari, dismissing an application under O. 41, R. 27, C.P.C. to admit a document as additional evidence in the appeal.

(2.) THE petitioner produced an extract from the resettlement register in the trial court. THE extract was issued by the revenue inspector of the Firka. When the document was sought to be marked as an exhibit in the trial court, an objection was raised by the respondents herein to the marking of the document. THE trial court overruled the objections and marked the document. On the basis of the document, the trial court granted a decree in favour of the petitioner herein. THE respondents filed an appeal before the sub-court and in the course of the argument in the appeal, the respondent contended that the document marked as exhibit in the trial court was not admissible and the trial court ought not to have rested its conclusion on that document. At was not admissible and the trial court that stage the petitioner has produced a similar extract from the same resettlement register issued by the tahsildar of Sankari Taluk and applied for filing it as additional evidence.

(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel appearing for the revision petititioner that when the very same document issued by the revenue inspector is already on record as an exhibit, there is no ground for rejecting the document issued by the tahsildar and the court below ought to have taken it in evidence. Learned counsel further submits that the matter would fall under Cl.(b) of O. 41, R. 27, C.P.C. and under Cl.(b) a document can be admitted as additional evidence in an appeal if the appellate Court requires that document to be produced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. Hence, under Cl.(b) of O. 41, R. 27, C.P.C, it is the appellate court which should require the document for the purpose of enabling it to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. The appellate court does not require the document as seen from the order of the subordinate judge. With regard to the substantial cause. I do not 6nd any such cause for the production of the document before the appellate court. There is no explanation as to why the petitioner did not obtain an extract from the tahsildar even during the pendency of the trial and produce it before the trial court. The petitioner was quite aware of the objection raised by the respondents herein, when he produced in the trial court, the copy issued by the reveue inspector. Immediately he ought to have applied for a copy from the tahsildar, if he was of the opinion that the copy issued by the revenue inspector was not useful as evidence in court. But, he proceeded to have it admitted and the trial court also rested its conclusion on the said document. Hence, there is no question of substantial cause having been made out for admitting the document now produced as additional evidence in that appeal. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court reported in Babulal v. Kanhaiyalal 1 . In that case, a power of attorney was produced in the earlier stage which was found to be invalid for want of registration. A second power of attorney was got executed and registered and that was sought to be produced as additional evidence under O. 41, R. 27, C.P.C. The court admitted the same as additional evidence relying upon the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Jugraj Singh v. Jaswant Singh 2 . The said decision has no bearing on the present case as the second power of attorney which was sought to be filed as additional evidence in that case was not in existence at the earlier stage of the proceedings and it could not have been produced at all by the party. Hence, the requirement of O. 41, R. 27 was satisfied in that case.