Bombay High Court
Hariom Kashmirilal Batra And ... vs Kumar Prashant Narayan Bhagat ... on 25 April, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale
1/5 30wp3702.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3702 OF 2021
Hariom Kashmirilal Batra and anr.
Vs.
Kumar Prashant Narayan Bhagat and anr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Abdul Subhan, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. S.M. Khan, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE J.
DATE : 25.04.2022.
By this writ petition, the petitioners have
challenged order dated 18.08.2021 passed by the
Court of District Judge-2, Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha
(hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate Court')
whereby an application at Exhibit 14 filed on behalf
of the petitioners i.e. original defendants under Order
41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)
stood rejected.
2. By the aforesaid application an attempt
was being made to place on record additional
documents which according to the petitioners were
2/5 30wp3702.2021
relevant and necessary for the appellate Court to
render its decision in the matter. The appellate Court
considered the application and rejected the same.
3. Mr. Abdul Shubhan, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners submitted that the
appellate Court erred in exercising jurisdiction under
Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, in view of the settled
position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in various judgments including judgments in
the cases of Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and
another, 2012 (8) SCC 148 and State of Rajasthan Vs.
T.N. Sahani and Ors., 2001 (10) SCC 619. By relying
upon the said judgments, it was submitted that the
application filed by the petitioners could have been
heard and decided only while hearing the appeal
finally.
4. On the other hand, Mr.Joharapurkar,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submitted that there could no quarrel with the
proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the aforesaid judgments. It was submitted
the impugned order was, in fact, in tune with the said
position of law, because the appeal filed by the
petitioners was indeed being heard finally when the
said application was placed on record and it was at
3/5 30wp3702.2021
that stage that the appellate Court considered the
same and came to a conclusion that the said
documents sought to be placed on record were not
necessary for the appellate Court to pronounce
judgment in the matter. On this basis, it was
submitted that the writ petition deserved to be
dismissed.
5. This Court has considered the impugned
order. It is clear from the contents of the same,
particularly paragraph 14 thereof, that the application
was considered at the stage of final hearing of the
pending appeal before the appellate Court. The
material placed on record on behalf of the
respondents shows that it was when the respondent
before this Court, who is also respondent before the
appellate Court was being heard in the matter
through Advocate, during the course of final hearing,
that the said application under Order 41 Rule 27 of
the CPC was filed and came up for consideration.
6. In other words, the arguments on behalf
of the petitioners i.e. original appellants before the
appellate Court were already over during the course
of final hearing of the appeal and the Advocate for
the respondents was being heard. It is at this stage of
final hearing that the application came to be moved,
4/5 30wp3702.2021
which the appellate Court considered and found that
the additional documents sought to be placed on
record Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC were not
necessary for the appellate Court to render or
pronounce judgment in the matter.
7. Considering the facts of the present case,
this Court is of the opinion that the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned
judgments Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and
State of Rajasthan Vs. T.N. Sahani (supra) has been
followed. It is laid down in the said judgments that
an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC is
to be considered by the appellate Court at the stage of
hearing of the appeal on merits, so as to reach a
conclusion, as to whether the same ought to be
allowed to enable it to pronounce judgment. The
appellate Court in the present case considered the
application filed by the petitioners at the stage of
final hearing of the appeal on merits and therefore,
there is no procedural infirmity in the approach
adopted by the appellate Court.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is
dismissed.
5/5 30wp3702.2021
9. The petitioners would be at liberty to raise
grounds concerning the aforesaid documents, if
occasion arises for them to file a further appeal to
challenge the judgment of the appellate Court.
JUDGE
Prity
Digitally signed
by PRITY S
PRITY S GABHANE
GABHANE Date:
2022.04.27
19:52:20 +0530
