Allahabad High Court
Smt. Rama Devi vs Smt. Omwati And 2 Others on 6 December, 2022
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11148 of 2022
Petitioner :- Smt. Rama Devi
Respondent :- Smt. Omwati And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramendra Asthana
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
The petitioner has approached this Court submitting that suit of cancellation of sale deed was decided against her and challenging the said order she has filed Civil Appeal No. 124 of 2017 which is pending before the Additional District Judge, Court No. 29, Agra.
Before the appellate court, the petitioner had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC read with Sections 107 and 151 CPC for production of additional evidence. The said application has been rejected by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated by order dated 21.10.2022.
It is well settled by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court in a large number of cases that such application has to be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal as at the stage of hearing the court would be able to ascertain the relevance of the said facts. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. T.N. Sahani and others, (2001) 10 SCC 619. Relevant paragraph-4 of the said judgment reads thus:
"4. It may be pointed out that this Court as long back as in 1963 in K.Venkataramiah v. Seetharama Reddy, AIR 1963 SC 1526 pointed out the scope of unamended provision of Order 41 Rule 27(c) that though there might well be cases where even though the court found that it was able to pronounce the judgment on the state of the record as it was, and so, additional evidence could not be required to enable it to pronounce the judgment, it still considered that in the interest of justice something which remained obscure should be filled up so that it could pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. This is entirely for the court to consider at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits whether looking into the documents which are sought to be filed as additional evidence, need be looked into to pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. If that be so, it is always open to the court to look into the documents and for that purpose amended provision of Order 41 Rule 27(b) CPC can be invoked. So the application under Order 41 Rule 27 should have been decided along with the appeal. Had the Court found the documents necessary to pronounce the judgment in the appeal in a more satisfactory manner it would have allowed the same; if not, the same would have been dismissed at that stage. But taking a view on the application before hearing of the appeal, in our view, would be inappropriate. Further the reason given for the dismissal of the application is untenable. The order under challenge cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The application is restored to its file. The High Court will now consider the appeal and the application and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law."
This Court finds that, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Additional District Judge ought to have not decided the application of the petitioner at this stage. No useful purpose would be served in issuing notice to the respondents, thus the petition is being disposed of at this stage.
The order dated 21.10.2022 is set aside and the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 29, Agra is directed to consider the said application of the petitioner at the time of hearing of the appeal.
Since the appeal is pending since more than five years, this Court on administrative side has already issued directions to the court below to maintain zero pendency of cases which are more than five years old. In view of orders already issued on administrative side, the court below is expected to decide the aforesaid appeal which is pending before it expeditiously without any further delay. The court shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment including the ground of strikes of the lawyers. The parties shall fully cooperate in early disposal of the case.
With the aforesaid observations, the the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 06.12.2022
DS
(Vivek Chaudhary,J.)
