UMA SHANKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are the substituted plaintiff nos.4 & 5 in Title Suit No.51 of 2003, are aggrieved of order dated 18.01.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No.01 of 2017 by which their application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC has been rejected.

(2.) Title Suit No.51 of 2003 (re-numbered as 65 of 2005) was instituted by Ram Nath Singh for a decree for declaration of his perpetual right, title and interest over the suit schedule land through adverse possession and confirmation of his possession over the same. A declaration in respect of final publication of the record of rights dated 31.03.1992 as illegal, wrong and erroneous was also sought by the plaintiff. The plaintiff pleaded that the suit land is not included in the lease-deed, granted in favour of the defendant- TISCO Limited, Jamshedpur by the State of Bihar, is reflected in the report of the Circle Officer dated 11.04.1991 and it is the plaintiff who is in continuous possession over the suit land. During pendency of the suit the plaintiff- Ram Nath Singh died and his legal heirs and successors were substituted in his place. The suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.11.2016 and a decree was prepared and signed on 012016. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed Original Civil Appeal No.01 of 2017. During the course of argument in the said appeal, an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was filed on 001.2018 for taking lease-deeds dated 01.08.1985 and 20.08.2005 as additional evidence. This application has been dismissed on the ground that these documents are not necessary for arriving at a just decision in the case.

(3.) Sub-Rule 1 to Rule 27 of Order XLI C.P.C mandates that additional evidence shall not be taken at the appellate stage. This restriction has, however, statutory exceptions under sub-rule 1(a), (aa) and (b). It provides that if evidence which ought to have been taken has been refused by the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, it may be admitted in evidence [clause (a)]. Under clause (aa) if the party seeking permission to produce additional evidence establishes that in spite of due diligence the document sought to be produced in evidence at appellate stage could not have been produced before the court below, such document also may be admitted in evidence. The real intent and import of Rule 27(1) of Order XLI C.P.C is that if a document is required to be admitted in evidence or a witness to be examined to enable the appellate court to pronounce judgment, keeping in mind the provisions under clause (a) and clause (aa), the appellate court may permit production of a document or examination of a witness. But, clause (a) and clause (aa) are not the only instances in which additional document may be taken in evidence at the appellate stage. Rule 27(1)(b) confers powers upon the appellate court to admit in evidence any document for any other substantial cause. Evidently, irrespective of the restriction under Order XLI Rule 27(1), wide powers have been conferred upon the appellate court to admit a document in evidence or to examine a witness at the appellate stage.