Rajasthan High Court
Ramdev Chela Late Shri Haridas vs Yashwantdev @ Jaswant Chela Late ... on 30 September, 2022
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21358/2018
Ramdev Chela Late Shri Haridas, Aged About 63 Years, R/o
Bankhandi Ashram, Jonaycha Khurd, Tehsil Neemrana, Dist.
Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Yashwantdev @ Jaswant Chela Late Shri Haridas, R/o
Bankhandi Ashram, Jonaycha Khurd, Tehsil Neemrana,
Dist. Alwar.
2. Indradev Late Shri Haridas, R/o Bankhandi Ashram,
Jonaycha Khurd, Tehsil Neemrana, Dist. Alwar.
3. The Tehsildar, Behror, Tehsil Behror, Dist. Alwar
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Tarushi Maheshwari, Adv. on
behalf of Mr. Anurag Kalavatiya, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
30/09/2022
Learned counsel for the parties submit that the present
controversy is squarely covered as per the order passed by this
Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21363/2018, vide its order
dated 21.09.2022.
The operative portion of the said order passed by this Court
is quoted as hereunder:-
"This Court finds that the respondents
have preferred an appeal against the
mutation entries made in favour of the
(2 of 5) [CW-21358/2018]
petitioner and during pendency of the
appeal, the petitioner filed an application for
bringing certain documents on record and as
such, they sought to exercise their right by
invoking Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
This Court finds that the Appellate
Court while hearing the appeal has been
given power under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC,
wherein, the Court can direct the parties to
produce additional evidence whether oral or
documentary and certain conditions are
required to be fulfilled by any of the parties
who seeks to file additional evidence.
This Court finds that the very purpose
of giving a right to the party to file
additional evidence in the Appellate Court is
to facilitate the hearing of the appeal and for
any reason, if the documents or evidence
could not be produced before the first Court,
the Appellate Court at appellate stage
permits the party to produce evidence.
This Court further finds that the
documents produced before the Court or any
witness to be examined, is for the purpose
of enabling the Court to decide the
controversy in effective manner and to
pronounce the judgment and there is some
sufficient and substantial cause, the Court
can always permits the additional evidence
to be adduced before the Appellate Court.
This Court finds that in the present
facts of the case, the petitioner while filing
an application had mentioned that they were
in possession of certain documents and
(3 of 5) [CW-21358/2018]
those documents were necessary for
deciding the appeal which was filed by the
respondents and if the Appellate Court has
recorded in its order that the documents
which have been filed may be helpful in
deciding the appeal, no fault can be found
with such order.
This Court further finds that it is not
only one party which has been given right to
lead or produce the evidence before the
Appellate Court but adequate safeguard is
provided by giving opportunity to other side
for producing any evidence or document
which they want to produce in rebuttal and
as such, it cannot be said that any loss
would be caused to the respondents, if the
application of the petitioner is to be allowed.
The submission of learned counsel for
the respondents that reasons are required to
be recorded as per sub-Rule (2) of Rule 27
of Order 41 CPC, this Court finds that if the
Court has recorded in its order that the
documents so produced will be helpful in
deciding the case, the same is sufficient
reason and no more elaborate reason is
required.
The submission of learned counsel for
the respondents that the relevancy of
documents and nature of documents are
also required to be considered and any
document relevant or irrelevant, properly
stamped or not stamped and certified or not
certified, cannot be filed before the Court,
suffice it to say by this Court that only by
(4 of 5) [CW-21358/2018]
filing documents or producing any additional
evidence, itself will not be taken as the
relevant evidence or having its worth for
considering the case of the parties. The
filing of documents or leading of evidence
itself, will not create any right in favour a
party and the Court concerned has to
consider as what evidence is admissible or
what evidence is not admissible.
The Appellate Court has further power
to decide whether the primary evidence is to
be allowed and if primary evidence is not
there then secondary evidence is to be
considered or not.
The Appellate Court has to consider
that if certain documents are to be allowed
as the secondary evidence, even then the
requirement of Section 65 of the Evidence
Act, is to be complied with by the parties
concerned.
This Court finds that the objection
raised by learned counsel for the
respondents that the Court below has not
complied with mandatory provision, is liable
to be rejected.
The submission of learned counsel for
the respondents that the Supreme Court in
the case of Safal Kumar Sood & Ors. Vs.
Varinder Lal Sood & Ors. (supra) and the
Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of
Sallo Ram & Ors. Vs. Kuldip Chand &
Ors. (supra), have laid down the law that
the revision petition is the only remedy of
challenging the order where application of
(5 of 5) [CW-21358/2018]
filing document under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
is allowed, this Court is not required to
examine the said controversy as the Board
of Revenue has decided the revision petition
not only by holding it to be maintainable but
on the merits as well.
This Court finds that the order passed
by the Additional District Collector, Alwar, is
an order which is passed by considering the
scope of order under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
This Court further finds that cost of
Rs.200/- which has been imposed on the
petitioner is too less and as such, the
petitioner would be required to compensate
the respondents by paying cost of
Rs.35,000/- on the next date of hearing
before the Appellate Court.
Accordingly, the present writ petition
stands dispose of in above terms."
This writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the same
terms as per the order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.21363/2018.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J
Ramesh Vaishnav /86
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
