Most. Sursati Devi And ANR v. Surendra Sahni And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8711 of 2015 ====================================================== Most. Sursati Devi & Anr .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
Surendra Sahni & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Shrivastava For the Respondent/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 06-01-2016 Heard learned counsel Mr. Binod Kumar Singh for the petitioners.
By the impugned order dated 09.04.2015 the learned Additional District Judge-V, Bettiah rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs-appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC in Title Appeal No.87 of 1995.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the hearing of the title appeal is going on and at this stage the plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners obtained information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and filed application for permission to adduce additional evidence.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr., 2013 (1) PLJR 48 (SC) has held that the general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any
Patna High Court CWJC No.8711 of 2015 (2) dt.06-01-2016 evidence in appeal. However as an exception Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The appellate court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, provision does not apply. When on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment.
In view of the above the court below has exercised the discretionary jurisdiction, the same cannot be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Thus, this writ application is dismissed.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Harish/- U