SADHU RAM Vs. GHASI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 9.12.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which application of the petitioner under order 41 Rule 27 had been dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court in the appeal filed by him. The application was moved by the present revision petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, for producing on record by way of additional document, the sale -deed in regard to plot No. 199, Rishi Galav Nagar, Jaipur. It was further stated in the application that he had got his written statement amended in the trial court to the effect that two shops have been constructed on plot No. 199 which was denied by the plaintiff. The fact of any shops being vacant or being let out were also denied by the plaintiff. He stated that to prove the falsehood of the averments made by the plaintiff, he wants to place on record the sale -deed dated 19.10.1992 of which certified coy had been obtained on 27.12.1999. The lower appellate court had dismissed the application on the ground that this very document was in the knowledge of the applicant revision petitioner, discussion of which had also been made before the trial court. For the reason that from the very beginning he had the knowledge of the same, but still he had not choosen to produce it before the trial court nor any such application was moved; it was observed that the existence and the knowledge of the document being available with the revisiosn petitioner, to allow him to place the document on record at this stage, shall not be in the interest of justice. Being aggrieved against the said order, the revision petitioner had come up in the revision petition with the only submission that the application for producing on record the additional document could not be dismissed at this stage and should have been considered at the time of deciding the appeal itself.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner relies on a judgment in the case of Union of India v. Smt. Parvati Devi and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 1425/2000, wherein it was observed, whether the court requires additional evidence for the pronouncement of judgment or not, will depend upon the consideration of the main appeal along with the application for additional evidence in accordance with law and in the light of Order 41 Rule 27, CPC. Application under Order 41 Rule 27 was dismissed which was moved in the first appeal, which appeal had not still been admitted.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent relies on a judgment in the case of Mohan Singh v. Late Amar Singh : AIR1999SC482 wherein it was observed as under: