Chattisgarh High Court
Bhavesh Kumar Khaitan vs Madhu Shah on 20 January, 2025
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
SA No.562 of 2024
Bhavesh Kumar Khaitan Versus Madhu Shah
20/01/2025 Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate with Mr. M.L. Saket,
Advocate for appellant.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, PL for State.
Heard on admission.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit primarily on the ground
that the sale-deed dated 17.10.1997 Ex.P/3 to be forged
and febricated as it was not executed under the signature
of the plaintiff. During course of trial, learned trial Court
recording that the appellant/plaintiff failed to prove that the
signature on the sale-deed to be forged and not of the
plaintiff, has dismised the suit. It is contention of learned
counsel for the appellant that against the execution of
forged and febricated sale-deed, appellant/plaintiff has
also filed one complaint before the concerned police-
station, based upon which criminal case was registered
against Ratan Lal Kedia, Vijay Bajaj and Kiran Pandey. In
that proceedings, sale-deed ExP/3, subject matter of the
civil suit was sent for its examination before the State
Digitally
NISHA signed
by
DUBEY NISHA Examiner, Bhopal, and report was submitted by the
DUBEY
investigating agency before the criminal Court. He
contended that in first appeal filed by the the appellant/
plaintiff an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of
Civil Procedure was submitted for taking additional
evidence on record, which pertains to the documents
which were already part of the record of criminal case
along with the report of the State Examiner. Learned First
Appellate Court dismissed the application only on the
ground that the appellant/plaintiff was aware of the
judgment passed in criminal case dated 10.11.2016 and
the same was produced before the trial Court, therefore,
ground raised in the said application by the
appellant/plaintiff that petitioner was not aware with the
proceedings of the criminal case and the documents
placed, is not acceptable. He contended that the claim in
the civil suit filed by the petitioner is primarily on the ground
that the signature appearing in the sale-deed is not of the
appellant/plaintiff, which goes to the root of matter and
therefore it was imperative upon the Court to allow the
application under order 41 Rule 27 of CPC so as to
decide the root cause of the suit and the appeal.
In support of his contention he places reliance upon
decision in case of Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of
Jharkhand, reported in (2022) 7 SCC 247.
Considering the submission made by counsel for
appellant, the appeal is admitted for consideration on
following substantial question of law:-
"1. Whether the learned First Appellate Court erred
in rejecting the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of
CPC for taking additional evidence on record in the facts
and circumstances of the case. ?
Issue notice to respondents.
Learned State counsel accepts notice on behalf of
respondent No.6, hence process fee is not required to be
paid for issuance of notice to respondent No.6.
On appellant's depositing process fee as per rules,
notice be issued to respondents No.1 to 5, making it
returnable in four weeks.
Heard on IA No.1 of 2024, application under Order
39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as
the appeal is admitted for hearing, therefore, the interim
protection may be granted with respect to the status of the
property, as it exists today, otherwise it may cause
multiplicity of the proceedings.
On due consideration of submission of counsel for
appellant, it is directed that, status quo, as it exists today,
with respect to the suit property shall be maintained by the
parties till the next date of hearing.
List this case after four weeks.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Nisha
