RAMHIT Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri I.M. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.P. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 7.

(2.) Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Appellate Court below has wrongly rejected both the applications without taking into consideration the relevant provisions contained in Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has emphasized that the learned Court below has not returned any finding as to the relevance of the documents which were sought to be produced by the plaintiff as additional evidence and hence in absence of such a finding the order passed by the Appellate Court cannot be permitted to be sustained.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the documents which were sought to be produced are directly related and are relevant to the case put forth by the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court. It has also been stated that the petitioner is an illiterate villager and the documents which were sought to be relied upon by filing them as additional evidence were not in his custody and further that copies of the certain documents available in the record room of the Collectorate are in Urdu language and that the petitioner could get copies of some documents only after a direction was issued by this Court by means of the order dated 18.2.2014, passed in Writ Petition No. 1334 (M/B) of 2014. He has thus stated that the petitioner had established "substantial cause" for taking the additional documents on record, however, the learned Appellate Court has erred in rejecting the said application.