Metro Industries vs The Adityapur Industrial Area
2021 Latest Caselaw 3693 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                 W.P. (C) No. 5353 of 2016
                         ........

Metro Industries                        ....  ..... Petitioner
                              Versus
The Adityapur Industrial Area
Development Authority & Others          ....  ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing) ............

For the Petitioner : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. R.C.P. Sah, Advocate.

........

08/29.09.2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Atanu Banerjee and learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2, Mr. R.C.P. Sah.

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 31.08.2016 passed in Title Appeal No. 25/2011, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. has been rejected on the ground that the said documents were in possession of appellant / plaintiff, but was not filed the appellant / plaintiff before the court below intentionally.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the reason assigned by the learned court below is bad in law in view of Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C., which reads as follows:-

27. Production of Additional Evidence in Appellate Court. (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court, But if -

(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or

(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.

2. Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Atanu Banerjee has submitted that these documents are with regard to factory licence, renewed each year from the year 1975 onward till the year 2001, Assessment order passed by the Commercial Tax, Jamshedpur for the year 1982-1983, 1994 & 1995, Clearance Certificate for the year 1994-95, Registration Certificate Form-B No. JH-141 EXEMP dated 28.03.1974 issued by Commercial Taxes, Jamshedpur, Certificate under Clause (b) or (c) Sub-Section 1 of Section 13 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, Certificate No. AP-225 (Adityapur) dated 08.02.1990 issued by the Commercial Tax, Jamshedpur, Licence under the Central Excise Rule, 1944, to manufacturing of goods No. L-4 No. 76/NES/TI-68-/81 dated 22.12.1981, Sales Tax paid Treasury Challan and Central Sales Tax Treasury Challan along with rent receipts issued by AIADA No. 1973 onwards and the same could not be produced before the learned trial court, as the same was kept with the counsel at Ranchi. However, these documents are not the documents which can be manufactured, rather these documents are issued by competent Government officials and as such, adducing them as additional evidence will not cause prejudice to the respondent AIADA, as such, this petition may be allowed as these documents are necessary for adjudication of the dispute in the appellate court.

Mr. R.C.P. Sah learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the prayer and has submitted that Title Suit was filed in the year 2003 vide Title Suit No. 09/2003, which was dismissed on 09.05.2011 and thereafter Title Appeal No. 25/2011 has been preferred, but such petition under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. has been filed on 19.02.2014 which was rejected by the impugned order and as per report, the matter is pending for hearing and if the writ petition is allowed, heavy cost may be imposed upon the petitioner.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into facts and circumstances of the case, these documents are the

documents issued by the Department of State Government and as such, it would not be proper to disallow such prayer because these additional evidence can only be considered by the learned appellate court for proper adjudication of the matter, but since there is an abnormal delay in preferring the application, as the title suit has been filed by the plaintiff in the year 2003, which was dismissed on 09.05.2011 and thereafter, title appeal has been filed in the year 2011, but such petition has been filed on 19.02.2014, meaning thereby after 11 years of filing of the title suit, as such this Court allow that application on cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the AIADA.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Atanu Banerjee has submitted that the documents have already been brought on record before the learned appellate court, which may be accepted and the cost will be deposited within two weeks.

If cost is deposited within two weeks, the learned appellate court shall consider the same in accordance with law.

The learned appellate court after taking note of the fact, dis- posed of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, as the appeal is of the year 2011.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

I.A. No. 5831/2017 is hereby closed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-