Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1144 (JHR)

Basantlal Prasad v. Balmukund Singh

2008-09-23

R.K.MERATHIA

body2008
Order This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 8.1.2007 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Bermo at Tenughat in Title Appeal No. 60 of 1996 rejecting the petition dated 10.11.2006 filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for admitting the notification and certified copy of Gazette as additional evidence said to be public documents. 2. It appears that the suit was filed by the petitioners as far back as in the year 1987. After about 10 years the suit was dismissed on merits. The petitioner filed appeal as far back as in 1996 itself. After about 10 years, the petitioner filed the petition in question under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for admitting the said documents as additional evidence on the grounds that the same are important public documents necessary for arriving at just decision of the case; and that the same was not within the knowledge of petitioner when the said judgment was passed in the suit; and that when it came into the knowledge, the certified copy was obtained on 9.7.1998 during the pendency of the appeal and the same was handed over to the concerned Advocate which was kept and remained in the file and only when the lawyer was preparing for argument, it was seen that the said document was lying in the file. 3. Learned court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the petition filed by the petitioner does not disclose any ground as to whether such evidence was not within knowledge or he could not, after the exercise of due diligence, produce the same earlier and also on the ground that these documents are not essential for pronouncing judgment or for any other substantial cause. 4. Counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order. 5. It is true that the petitioner could not show that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, the said documents were not within his knowledge till the time the suit was decided. But it is not disputed that he obtained certified copy of the said documents on 9.7.1998: However, no petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed and the appeal was taken up for hearing. But it is not disputed that he obtained certified copy of the said documents on 9.7.1998: However, no petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed and the appeal was taken up for hearing. In the interest of justice, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be given one chance. It goes without saying that the lower appellate court, will examine the relevancy, effect and weight of the said documents, sought to be adduced as additional evidence, on the respective cases of the parties. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the prayer made in the petition dated 10.11.2006 filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondents will be at liberty to adduce evidence in rebuttal, if so advised. However, this order will be subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000.00 to be deposited in the lower appellate court within six weeks, which the other side will be entitled to withdraw. It is made clear that if the cost is not deposited within time, this writ petition shall automatically stand dismissed. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.