CHETAN SWAROOP Vs. NARSINGH DAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed against the judgment dt. 24.03.2014, passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (hereinafter "the Board") whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order dt. 23.02.2011, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer against the Jamabandi entries made in respect of land in dispute on 09.01.1976 was dismissed. Mr. R.K. Goyal, appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Board's order -sheet dt. 24.02.2014 whereby the Board while reserving the judgment in the petitioner's appeal allowed the parties to file additional documents. It has been submitted that aside of the merit of the impugned judgment dt. 24.03.2014, the procedure adopted by the Board in taking on record the documents filed by the respondent No. 1 under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. subsequent to the reserving of judgment in the appeal was contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Raj Kumar Ajmani vs. U.B.I. & Anr., SB Civil Revision Petition No. 502/1994, decided on 12.12.1994. Counsel has submitted that aside of the above, the Board accepted the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. along with 49 documents without as much as giving an opportunity of rebuttal to the petitioner as the appellant before the Board. Reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore vs. H. Narayanaiah etc., : AIR 1976 SC 2403 wherein it has been held that it is incumbent upon the appellate authority/Court allowing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. to state reasons therefor to show as to why the admission of such documents/evidence at the appellate stage was necessary for the decision of the appeal. It was further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even if it is found that the additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. was necessary to be admitted, an opportunity has to be given to the opposite party to rebut such additional evidence by leading evidence in rebuttal. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that acceptance of the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. subsequent to the judgment being reserved on 24.02.2014 and not allowing the appellant to rebut the said evidence vitiates the entire judgment of the Board and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

(2.) MR . R.K. Mathur, Sr. Advocate appearing with Mr. Ashok Kumar Mathur, for the respondent No. 1 would however submit that the order dt. 24.02.2014, passed by the Board while reserving the judgment in the appeal filed by the petitioner was a consent order passed in the presence of both the parties and the petitioner cannot now make any ground for interference with the judgment of the Board on the aforesaid count. Sr. Counsel further submitted that in any event of the matter, a reading of the impugned judgment dt. 24.03.2014 indicates that the documents filed by the respondents under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. before the Board have not been determinative in the impugned judgment dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. It has been submitted that the two grounds agitated on behalf of the petitioner are therefore of no avail and the petition therefore be dismissed.

(3.) HEARD . Considered.