PREMA DEVI Vs. KUSHUM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

(2.) Defendant in Title Suit No. 80 of 2008 is the appellant before the learned Court of District & Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Hazaribag in Title Appeal No. 29 of 2015. Appellant's application dated 08.01.2016 under Order XLI Rule 27 to adduce additional evidence in the nature of documents, which were enumerated in the list of document dated 25.10.2010 before the learned Trial Court, but were not adduced as evidence at the trial stage, have been declined vide impugned order dated 17.03.2016. Plea of the appellant was declined on the ground that though the judgment in Title Suit was finally pronounced on 18.04.2015, the defendant was not diligent in adducing its evidence before the learned Trial Court despite sufficient time and opportunity available to it. The documents are in the nature of original sale deed no. 4137 dated 15.03.2000, deed no. 11927 dated 12.10.1999 and revenue receipt and correction slip, which according to the appellant are important and relevant documents necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute raised in Title Suit No. 88 of 2008. It is further case of the petitioner that because of illiteracy and ignorance, the same could not be adduced at the trial stage. Learned Appellate Court after referring to the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 did not find the plea acceptable under the conditions incorporated in the instant Rule.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, however, submits while placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr., 2012 8 SCC 148, para-36 to 48 that the Appellate Court should not have outrightly rejected the application at this stage. The option to exercise discretion at the appropriate stage of pronouncement of final judgment should have been kept open as per Order 47 Rule 1(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Appellate Court could have considered at the appropriate stage whether the additional evidence may be necessary to pronounce judgment and in the interest of justice. The Appellate Court can in such circumstances after recording reasons ask such additional evidence to be produced by any of the parties including the appellant. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the rejection of the petitioner's application should not be meant to preclude the Appellate Court from exercising its discretionary power under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) at the time of pronouncement of final judgment or for any other substantial cause.