Patna High Court
Ramawati Devi vs Nand Kumar Singh on 15 April, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1103 of 2023
======================================================
1. Ramawati Devi, W/o Late Anand Bihar Singh
2. Ranjay Kumar Singh, S/o late Anand Bihar Singh
3. Shesh Nath Singh, S/o Late Anand Bihar Singh
4. Reena Devi, D/O Late Anand Bihar Singh
5. Meena Devi, D/O Late Anand Bihar Singh
6. Soni Kumari, D/O Late Anand Bihar Singh
7. Dolly Kumari, D/O Late Anand Bihar Singh
All are residents of Village and P.O. - Gokula Rupauli, P.S- Paroo, District-
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Nand Kumar Singh, S/o Late Paras Nath Singh
2. Yashoda Devi, W/o Late Shyam Kumar Singh
3. Satguru Sharan @ Naga, S/o Late Shyam Kumar Singh
4. Priya Dashan Kumar Singh, S/o Late Shyam Kumar Singh
5. Bulbul Devi, D/O Late Shyam Kumar Singh
6. Nilu Devi, D/O Late Shyam Kumar Singh
7. Guddi Kumari, D/O Late Shyam Kumar Singh
8. Mantoran Kumari, D/O Late Shyam Kumar Singh
9. Pramod Kumar Singh, S/o Late Shyam Kumar Singh
10. Shiv Kumar Singh, S/o Late Shyam Kumar Singh
All are residents of village and P.O. - Gokula Rupauli, P.S- Paroo, District-
Muzaffarpur.
11. Majnu Devi, D/o Late Deonath Singh, R/o Raghunathpur, P.S.- Paroo,
District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Udit Narayan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 15-04-2025
Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the
respondents.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1103 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
2. The instant petition has been filed for setting aside
the order dated 19.08.2023 passed in Title Appeal No.06/1998
by the court of learned Additional District Judge-1, Muzaffarpur
whereby and whereunder the petition dated 14.10.2022 filed by
the plaintiffs/respondents for bringing on record certain
additional evidence has been allowed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were defendants and respondents were plaintiffs
before the learned trial court and after the Title Suit No.25/1988
was decreed by the learned Sub Judge-V, Muzaffarpur, Title
Appeal No. 06/1998 was preferred. The learned counsel further
submits that initially the suit was decreed ex-parte against the
defendants/respondents, but subsequently the ex-parte order was
set aside. In the ex-parte hearing of title suit, several documents
were marked exhibits after due consideration, but when the
matter was being heard on contest, the plaintiffs withdrew
certain documents and did not get those documents exhibited,
which were earlier marked exhibits. During pendency of the
appeal, after title suit was decreed against the
defendants/petitioners, an application was filed on behalf of the
plaintiffs/respondents for taking on record the documents of the
plaintiffs. The learned counsel further submits that the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1103 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
documents were all along within the knowledge of the
respondents and still they did not take steps earlier for getting
those documents exhibited. The learned counsel further submits
that at the time of allowing the application, the learned first
appellate court did not record any reasons why the documents
were necessary to enable the court to pronounce the judgment.
Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents submits that the Title Appeal No. 06/1998 has been
heard at length and, thereafter, it has been reserved for judgment
and at this stage, it would not serve any useful purpose to
interfere with the impugned order. The learned counsel further
submits that moreover, the documents were already marked as
exhibits when ex-parte hearing had been taking place. But ex-
parte hearing was set aside and the matter was proceeded on
contest against the petitioners. Inadvertently, those documents,
which were marked earlier, could not be exhibited in the fresh
proceeding. When this fact came to the knowledge of the
petitioners, they moved application to bring on record those
documents and the learned first appellate court allowed the
application while recording the averment of the petitioners that
the documents were vital, significant and relevant for deciding
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1103 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
the case and the objection of the petitioners was only to the
extent that the petition for taking documents on record was
malafide and has been filed only with a view to delay the
disposal of the case.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival
submission of the parties and perused the record.
6. Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') reads as under :
"27. 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,
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1103 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
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".
7. Apparently, the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 (1)
(a) (aa) of the Code have no application in the present case.
Now the third condition is if the appellate court requires any
documents to be produced or any witness to be examined so as
to enable it to pronounce the judgment or for any other
substantial cause the appellate court may allow such evidence or
document to be produced or witness to be examined. The
learned first appellate court has duly taken note of the fact that
those documents were earlier exhibited during ex-parte hearing
of the title suit and also taken objection of the petitioners in
consideration but the petitioners themselves asserted that the
documents are vital, significant and relevant for deciding the
case. However, their objection is with regard to the stage of
appeal which, according to the learned counsel for the
petitioners, is at the final stage and now it has also come in
submission that the Title Appeal No.06/1998 has been fixed for
judgment.
8. Since the learned first appellate court itself has held
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1103 of 2023 dt.15-04-2025
that the documents are vital, significant and relevant for
deciding the case, on the basis of averment made on behalf of
the petitioners, this Court would not like to interfere with the
impugned order considering the finding of the learned first
appellate court about the documents being significant for the
purpose of disposal of the case before it.
9. Therefore, I do not find the impugned order suffers
from any infirmity as the same has been passed after due
consideration of the facts and law, as such, the same is affirmed.
10. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 18.04.2025
Transmission Date NA
