Bhuneshwari vs Chintamani
2022 Latest Caselaw 644 Chatt

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             SA No. 21 of 2022
1. Bhuneshwari W/o Bharatlal Sahu, Aged About 49 Years, Daughter of
   Dayaram Sahu, R/o Village Devsundra, Post- Devsundra, Tahsil Palari,
   District Balodabazar Bhatapara (CG).
2. Saraswati W/o Kishunlal Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Yadunandan
   Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
                                                                ---- Appellants
                                  Versus
1. Chintamani, S/o Devendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vilalge
   Devsundra, Post Devsundra, Tahsil Palari, District Balodaazar Bhatapara
   Chhattisgarh.
2. Girish Kumar, S/o Devendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 16 Years, (Minor)
   represented Through brother Chintamani, R/o Village Devsundra, Post
   Devsundra, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
3. Devendra Kumar, S/o Dayaram Sahu, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village
   Devsundra, Post Devsundra, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara
   Chhattisgarh.
4. Nirmala W/o Dayaram, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Village Devsundra, Post
   Devsunndra, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
5. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, District Balodabazar
   Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
                                                             ---- Respondents

07/02/2022 Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate for the applicant/s.

Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Government Advocate for the State.

Heard.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the first appellate court has committed illegality in rejecting the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC without examining relevancy of the document which is paramount consideration for deciding application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, therefore, by way of this application, the appellant sought to produce the record of year 1942-43 i.e. Jamabandi, Kistbandi Khatauni for the year 1975-76 and Namantaran panji of year 1971. He would further submit that these documents are relevant to decide the issue whether the suit land is ancestral property or self acquired property of grandfather of the plaintiffs. He would further submit that the appellants has prima-facie good case in his favour.

The appeal is arguable and admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law;

"Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for production of additional evidence at the appellate stage without examining its relevancy only on the count of non-production of document at the time of trial"?.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF as per rules as well as on I.A. No. 01/2021, application under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC.

Also heard on I.A. No. 01/2022, application for under order 41 Rule 5 CPC.

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants that if the judgment and decree is not stayed by this Court then the appellants will suffer irreparable loss as the defendants may alienate the property; balance of convenience is also in favour of the appellants and the valuable right of appellants for production of documents has been rejected on the illegal consideration, as such it is directed the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.12.2021 (Annexure A/1) in Civil appeal No. 02-A/2021, passed by Third Additional District Judge, Baloabazar Bhatapara, shall remain stayed, till next date of hearing.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Santosh