Sughar Singh vs Smt Azad Kaur
2022 Latest Caselaw 8775 MP

                             1
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT GWALIOR
                           BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                      ON THE 1st OF JULY, 2022

                 MISC. PETITION No. 2300 of 2021

     Between:-
1.   SUGHAR SINGH S/O LATE SHRI MALTHU JATAV
     , AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
     FARMING VILLAGE BHAVKHEDI TEHSIL AND
     DISTT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.   KHAYALI S/O SHRI KHACHCHU JATAV , AGED
     ABOUT 60 YEARS, VIL. BHAVKHEDI, TEH.
     SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.   BACHNU S/O SHRI KHACCHU JATAV , AGED
     ABOUT 50 YEARS, VIL. BHAVKHEDI, TEH.
     SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.   RAMESH S/O LATE KHACCHU JATAV , AGED
     ABOUT 45 YEARS, VIL. BHAVKHEDI, TEH.
     SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.   SHYAMLAL S/O LATE SHRI SANNU KUTARIA ,
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, VIL. BHAVKHEDI, TEH.
     SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.   HANNU S/O LATE SHRI SANNU KUTARIA VIL.
     BHAVKHEDI,   TEH.  SHIVPURI  (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

7.   BHARAT     S/O     CHIRONJI        JATAV VIL.
     BHAVKHEDI,    TEH.   SHIVPURI       (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

8.   CHARNU S/O KUTARIA JATAV VIL. BHAVKHEDI,
     TEH. SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

9.   RAMDAYAL S/O SHRI KUTARIA JATAV VIL.
     BHAVKHEDI,  TEH.  SHIVPURI (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

                                                     .....PETITIONER
     (SHRI RISHIKESH BOHARE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
     PETITIONERS).
                                           2
        AND

1.      SMT AZAD KAUR W/O SHRI JAGAN BAIRAGI
        VILLAGE BHAISWAN KHURD, THEISL GUHANA
        SONIPAT (HARYANA)

2.      RAMWATI W/O LOTU D/O LATE SHRI MALTHU
        J A T AV VILL. GWALIPURA, TEH. POHARI
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.      KAMMO W/O RAMSWAROOP D/O LATE SHRI
        MALTHU     JATAV VILL. KUNWARPUR, TEH.
        SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
        (SHRI D. S. RAJAWAT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
        RESPONDENT [R-1].

      Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the

following:
                                           ORDER

Petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior by which he has accepted the photocopy of documents under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per Order 41 Rule 27 CPC he has to assign reasons for non-production of documents at an earlier stage. On going through his application nowhere he has assigned any reason for non-filing of the aforesaid documents previously.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition. Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. reads as follows:

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

On going through the application filed by the respondents before the Revenue Board it emerges out that no reason has been assigned in the application for non-filing the documents previously.

Looking to the aforesaid provision and application filed by the respondents before the Board of Revenue, this Court is of the opinion that the Revenue Board by the impugned order allowed the application is not according to law and is hereby set aside. Respondents are at liberty to submit the relevant documents as per the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE Van VANDANA VERMA 2022.07.01 17:37:12 -07'00'