Jharkhand High Court
Samsuddin Ansari And Another vs Md. Sikandar Ali And Others ... ... on 20 February, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No. 196 of 2020
Samsuddin Ansari and another
... ... ... Defendants/Appellants/Appellants
Versus
Md. Sikandar Ali and others ... Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : None
For the Respondents : None
---
15/20.02.2025 Nobody appears on behalf of the parties.
2. This appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated
12.06.2023 after framing the following substantial question of law: -
"Whether the learned first appellate court
committed gross illegality by not considering the records
of Case No. 524 of 1967 brought on record of the First
Appeal along with the petition filed under Order XLI
Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure; in respect of which,
though vide order dated 25.02.2019, the learned first
appellate court mentioned that appropriate order would
be passed in respect of the said petition filed under Order
XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure yet neither any
order was passed in respect of the said petition under
Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure nor the
same was considered; without any rhyme or reason?"
3. The records received from the Appellate Court reveals that a
petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC was filed on 11.07.2018
and the copy was served to the other side who had filed a reply also
and ultimately vide detailed order dated 25.02.2019 the petition was
considered and following observation was made:-
Perused the record. It appears from the record that at
the appellate stage the appellants have filed this petition
for marking the documents mentioned in the petition as
an exhibit by way of additional evidence. In my opinion
at this stage without hearing final argument of the
parties, it cannot be said that the documents mentioned
in the petition if taken into evidence and marked as an
exhibit will enable the court to pronounce the Judgment.
At the time of final hearing of the appeal at the stage
when after appreciating the evidence on record the
court reaches to the conclusion that the documents
mentioned in the petition is required as an additional
evidence to be taken on record to pronounce the
Judgment, then at that time appropriate order will be
passed in this regard. Accordingly, the petition is hereby
disposed of.
Put up the record for argument on 19.03.2019."
4. The aforesaid order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the Appellate
Court reveals that the Appellate Court was of the view that without
hearing final arguments of the parties it could not be said that the
documents mentioned in the petition seeking to adduce additional
evidence if taken into evidence and marked as exhibit would enable
the court to pronounce the judgment. It was also observed that at the
time of final hearing while appreciating the evidence on record if the
court reaches to the conclusion that the documents mentioned in the
petition was required as additional evidence to be taken on record to
pronounce the judgment, then appropriate order will be passed in the
case. However, the learned Appellate court has pronounced the
judgement without relying upon the additional evidence.
5. The records of the case further reveal that earlier another order
dated 10.07.2018 was passed wherein the appellant had sought
withdrawal of the petition dated 19.02.2014, 19.03.2016 and
06.06.2016 with a liberty to file fresh one and in the withdrawal
petition it was mentioned that a petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of
the CPC had been filed seeking exhibits of one Hukumnama and
certified copy of Revenue Court records in case No. 524 of 1967 on
19.02.2014 and again another petition for the same relief was filed on
19.03.2016 but due to mistake in the prayer portion only Revenue
Court records was stated. Thereafter another petition regarding
correction in prayer portion exhibiting both hukumnama and revenue
court record was filed on 06.06.2016. On account of discrepancy the
appellant wanted to withdraw all the aforesaid three petitions with
liberty to file fresh petition and the Appellate Court ultimately
permitted withdrawal of all the earlier petition seeking to file
additional evidence which were dated 19.02.2014, 19.03.2016 and
06.06.2016 as withdrawn and liberty was given to file fresh petition
and apparently the fresh petition was filed on 11.07.2018 in which the
aforesaid order dated 25.02.2019 was passed and the petition seeking
to file additional evidence vide petition dated 11.07.2018 was
disposed of with the aforesaid observation.
6. This court further finds that the Appellate Court has passed the
judgment on merits. However, no further observation has been made
in connection with the additional evidence sought to be brought on
record vide petition filed on 11.07.2018 and it appears that the
Appellate Court found no difficulty in pronouncing the judgement on
the basis of materials already available on record. The fact remains
that the petition seeking additional evidence was disposed of vide
order dated 25.02.2019 and cannot be said to be pending. The
Appellate court records reveals that the matter was heard on numerous
dates for the final disposal.
7. Upon going through the records and having made the aforesaid
observation in absence of the learned counsel for the parties, this court
finds it proper to give an opportunity to the parties to advance their
arguments, for that purpose, post this case on 24.02.2025 to be taken
up at 2:15 P.M. as a first case.
8. It is made clear that no adjournment will be granted.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
