Jharkhand High Court
Rajendra Prasad Mahto vs Smt. Juhabala Devi And Ors. ....... Opp. ... on 19 January, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 1117 of 2023
With
I.A. No. 9572 of 2023
---------
Rajendra Prasad Mahto ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Smt. JuhaBala Devi and Ors. ....... Opp. Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate
For the OP No.3 : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate
-----------
th
03/Dated: 19 January, 2024
1. Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the
order passed by the learned trial court in a petition filed under Order XLI
Rule 27 of CPC has submitted that the document which has been sought to
be allowed, has been allowed as per the prayer made in the petition dated
23.03.2023, was already considered by this Court in the earlier round of
litigation when the said document was refused to be accepted as an
additional evidence by filing a petition before this Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India being W.P.(C) No. 2553 of 2013, appended as
Annexure-5 to the petition.
2. It has been contended that once this Court in exercise of power conferred
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has set the issue at rest based
upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs.
Ibrahim Uddin and Anr., (2012) 8 SCC 148 wherein at para-49 it has been
observed that if the condition stipulated under Order XLI Rule 27 (a) and
(aa) of CPC then making enabling condition for the learned trial court under
Order XLI Rule 27 (b) of CPC, the appellate court can consider such
document by keeping in on record if the appellant court thinks it appropriate
for consideration of the said document at the time of pronouncement of
judgment.
3. Submission has been made that the aforesaid order was already passed but
again for adducing the same document for the purpose of adducing it by way
of additional evidence, a separate petition has been filed under Order XLI
Rule 27 of CPC and this time the learned trial court has allowed the said
petition in complete disregard to the order passed by this Court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, thereby, he has questioned the jurisdiction
of the concerned court as also submitted that when the order passed by this
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been accepted by
the petitioner of the said writ petition, then the such type of petition ought
not to have been filed and even if it has been filed, the concerned court ought
to have taken it into consideration.
4. It is not the case that the said order was not within the knowledge of the
learned trial court rather the learned trial court with full consciousness and
by taking note of the said order has again allowed the said petition.
5. Issue notice.
I.A. No. 9572 of 2023:
6. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for acceptance of
vakalatnama.
7. Considering the fact that this case is fit for issuance of notice, therefore, the
instant interlocutory application is fit to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application stands allowed.
9. Office is directed to accept the vakalatnama filed on behalf of opposite party
no.3.
10.Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, learned counsel for the opposite party has undertaken
that the vakalatnama on behalf of other plaintiffs/appellants shall be filed.
11.Accordingly, and as prayed for by Mr. Sahani, let this matter be listed on
09.02.2024.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Saurabh/-
