Jharkhand High Court
Dilip Kumar vs Bansi Thakur on 21 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 197 of 2023
----
1. Dilip Kumar, aged about 69 years
2. Ashok Kumar, aged about 66 years
Both are sons of Late Shiv Lal, resident of 10, Purulia Road,
Kumhartoli, PO and PS - Lower Bazar, District - Ranchi
.... Petitioners
-- Versus --
Bansi Thakur, son of Hiradhan Thakur, resident of Tetritoli, PO and PS
- Namkum, District - Ranchi .... Respondent
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent :- Mr. Jay Prakash Pandey, Advocate
----
04/21.01.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and
learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 12.01.2023
passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VIII, Ranchi in
Civil Appeal No.58 of 2018 whereby the petition under Order 41
Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC has been allowed by the
learned appellate court.
3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that at the appellate stage, the said documents
have been allowed and that is against the principle of Order 41 Rule
27. He submits that the due diligence is not there in spite of that
the learned Court has passed the said order which is not in
accordance with law and in view of that the said order may kindly
be set aside. He submits that the documents were in the knowledge
of the sole opposite party in spite of that it has not been brought on
record.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party
submits that only the certified copy of the khatiyan and the certified
copy of order of the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur relating to
the property has been brought on record and the learned Court has
taken it on record for pronouncing the judgment and on materials
there is no illegality.
5. From the impugned order dated 12.01.2023, it transpires
that the documents are the certified copy of khatiyan and the
certified copy of order of learned Court of Commissioner, South
Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi and the certified copy of order of the
High Court and in the light of that the learned Court has further
considered Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908
which provides restriction on transfer of the right by raiyat and the
learned Court further found that if those documents are brought on
record that will enable the Court to pronounce the judgment and do
full, complete and effectual justice to the parties and in view of that
the said documents have been taken by the learned Court.
6. It has been held in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh versus State of Jharkhand
reported in (2022) 7 SCC 247, wherein at paragraph No.8, it has
been held as under :-
8. As observed and held by this Court in A. Andisamy
Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar, the admissibility of additional
evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on
hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an
opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or
not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court
requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to
pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. It is
further observed that the trust test, therefore is, whether the
appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the
materials before it without taking into consideration the
additional evidence sought to be adduced.
7. In the said judgment, it has been held that the true test,
therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce
judgment on the materials before it without taking into
consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced or not.
The learned Court has found that those documents are necessary
for pronouncing the judgment and in view of that the said order has
been passed. There is no illegality in the order, as such this petition
is dismissed.
8. However, the petitioners will be allowed to lead additional
evidence on the documents which has been taken on record by the
learned Court.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Sangam/
