Devendra Tripati v. Anil Kumar And ANR
Patna High Court CWJC No.563 of 2015 (2) dt.01-03-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.563 of 2015 ====================================================== Devendra Tripati .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
Anil Kumar & Anr .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma For the Respondent/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 01-03-2016 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma for the petitioner.
By the impugned order dated 24.11.2014, the learned 2nd A.D.J., Bagaha rejected the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. in Title Appeal No.89 of 1993 recording a clearing finding that the sale deed sought to be adduced as additional evidence in the appeal is not necessary for just decision of the controversy between the parties in the suit.
Perused the order passed by the Court below. The lower appellate court has held that the controversy between the parties can be effectively decided in absence of the sale deed sought to be produced as additional evidence in the suit. Therefore, none of the clauses mentioned in Order 41 Rule 27 are applicable in the present case.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of
Patna High Court CWJC No.563 of 2015 (2) dt.01-03-2016 India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr., 2013(1) PLJR 48 Supreme Court has held that "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."
Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.
Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Saurabh/- U T