Orissa High Court
(An Application Under Section 115 Of The ... vs Life Insurance Corporation Of .... ... on 26 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CVREV No.249 of 1998
(An application under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908)
Badani Dei and others .... Petitioners
-versus-
Life Insurance Corporation of .... Opposite Parties
India Ltd. and others
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioners - None
For Opposite Parties - Mr. S.P. Mishra,
Sr.Advocate.
Assisted by
Mr.R.K. Agarwal,
Advocate.
For O.Ps.1 & 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :03.03.2025 :: Date of Judgment :26.03.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This civil revision under Section 115 of the CPC,
1908 has been filed by the petitioners challenging an order of rejection to
their petition under O.41 R.27 of the CPC, 1908 passed on dated
20.07.1998 in T.A. No.31 of 1995 by the learned Addl. District Judge,
Khurdha.
2. The factual backgrounds of the revision, which prompted the
petitioners (appellants in T.A. No.31 of 1995) for filing of the same is
that, the petitioners in this revision are the appellants in T.A. No.31 of
Page 1 of 4
CVREV No.249 of 1998
1995 and opposite parties of this revision are the respondents in the said
T.A. No.31 of 1995.
3. In that T.A. No.31 of 1995, the petitioners being the appellants
filed a petition under O.41 R.27 of the CPC, 1908 praying for adducing
some additional documentary evidence for the just decision of that first
appeal, to which, the learned First Appellate Court rejected as per Order
dated 20.07.1998 assigning the reasons that, the documents, to which, the
petitioners are interested to adduce as an additional evidence are not
public documents.
4. On being dissatisfied with the said order of rejection to the petition
under O.41 R.27 of the CPC, 1908 of the appellants passed in T.A. No.31
of 1995 on dated 20.07.1998 by the learned Addl. District Judge,
Khurdha, they (appellants in T.A. No.31 of 1995) challenged the same by
filing this revision being the petitioners against the respondents of the
T.A. No.31 of 1995 arraying them as opposite parties.
5. I have already heard only from the learned counsel for the opposite
parties (respondents in T.A. No.31 of 1995), as none appeared from the
side of the petitioners for hearing of the revision.
6. It is the settled propositions of law that, additional evidence can be
allowed only when the proposed additional evidence is required to enable
the Court to pronounce the judgment throwing light on germane issue and
when the said new evidence will have any direct bearing on the main
issue.
7. Here in this revision at hand, there is no material in the record to
show any direct bearing of the documents in question (to which, the
petitioners are interested to adduce as additional evidence before the First
Appellate Court in T.A. No.31 of 1995) on the main issue of the appeal
vide T.A. No.31 of 1995.
When, there is no material in the record to show that, the document
in question, to which, the petitioners are interested to adduce as additional
evidence has any bearing to throw light on germane issue of the T.A.
No.31 of 1995, then at this juncture, the order of rejection to the petition
under O.41 R.27 of the CPC, 1908 of the petitioners passed by the
learned First Appellate Court in T.A. No.31 of 1995 as per the impugned
order dated 20.07.1998 cannot be held as illegal/erroneous.
For which, the question of interfering with the same through this
revision filed by the petitioners does not arise.
8. Therefore, there is no merit in the revision of the petitioners. The
same must fail.
9. In result, the revision filed by the petitioners is dismissed on merit,
but without cost.
10. Accordingly, the civil revision is disposed of finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
26.03.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: UTKALIKA
NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of
Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 26-Mar-2025
17:22:01
