Pramod Singh vs Pradeep Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2991 MP

                                                            1
                                 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                           SA No. 1044 of 1998
                                                  (PRAMOD SINGH Vs PRADEEP SINGH)

                      Jabalpur, Dated : 03-03-2022
                            None for the appellant.

                            Shri Jagtendra Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent/ landlord.

On the last date of hearing, time was sought. Prior to that on 15.12.2021, nobody had appeared for the parties. Before that case was fixed for considering I.A. No.2857/2010, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 it was directed that it will be considered at the time of final hearing.

Today, nobody is appearing for the appellant.

An application bearing I.A. No.2857/2010 is filed under Order 41 Rule 27 on the ground that both the appellant and the plaintiff/ respondent are real brothers. Suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court and that decree in appeal was confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

It is further mentioned that plaintiff is claiming right and title on the suit property on the basis of gift deed executed by their father Shri Dal Pratap Singh on 02.07.1986 and 31.03.1988.

A prayer is made that handwriting expert be directed to examine the

handwriting of the author of the gift deed.

Shri Jagtendra Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent in his turn submits that gift deed was not executed by father but by mother of the present parties. It is submitted that the provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 27 are unambiguous. They permit production of additional evidence that appellate stage only on certain conditions namely when the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or 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 the appellate Court requires any document to be

Signature SAN Not produced or any witnesses to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or Verified

Digitally signed by for any other substantial cause. APARNA TIWARI Date: 2022.03.03 18:48:37 IST

It is submitted that none of the exigencies mentioned in Order 41 Rule 27 are fulfilled. It is pointed out that it is not the case of the appellant that he had filed an application seeking examination of said documents in the hand of handwriting expert and that was denied by the Court from whose decree the appeal is

preferred. Similarly, there is no material on record to show that despite exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within the knowledge of the defendant/ appellant.

At this stage, Shri K.K. Raidas, appears and submits that arguing counsel Shri Gyanendra Singh Baghel, is suffering from high B.P. and has not come to the Court.

On his request, list this case in the next week.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE

AT