IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPI s-?-/^ Wnt Petition No. / 2004 <^ ..••' .if\ _ . . - . . „-. _ . . _ . ! Petitioner ..•••'_<)?''' Smt. Uma Bai D/o Jagarmathiya W/o Dashrath Sahu^ ^s\^ ,* ^^ ^^\ Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Mohtara, PC No, /"n.feC'AV \ " ^y'^Sy' l35 Teh. Kasdol, Distt. Raipur (CG)- ^' y^T ^ '^^-..Kespondents ^ ^ VERSUS 1. Smt. Jana Bai D/o Kartikram Sahu Aged About 80 Yrs., R/o Vill. Kharkhod Teh. & Distt. Janjgir (CG) 2. Jagannathiya D/o Panchram Sahu Aged About 65 \ Yrs. R/o Village Mohtara, Teh. Kasdol, Distt. Raipur (CG) 3. State ofChhattisgarh, Through, Collector, Raipur. ^^-<Muocwe* \'(- I ^^^. AsscdUng Order Dated 7/8/2004 Passed By The Caurt of II Additional District Judae, Balodabazaar - Presided By Shri M.S. Kerketta, In Civil Appeal No. IO-A/2004 Arising out of Judgement & Decree Dated 27/04/04 Passed By The Court of Civil Judae - Class I, Balodabazaar - Presided By .Shri O.P. Gupta in Cwil Suit No. 20A/02. PETITION UNDERART 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION -^" :BI > HI<^€C It3TOF€imAl^lS(i^R®A^^I^S S.B: Hoh'bte ShriPradiant^Knmar Mistora Wnt Petition No.3713^MM)4 PETmONER : Snrt.UmaBai - RESPONDENTS : VCTSUS Smt. Jana Bai and ofliers ADpearance; !ShriAnumeshShrivastava,counselfprtiiepetitioner. Shn Suryafc^ Mishra,^aaset:forrespciadeirt No.1. None ferrespondentNQ.2. ^ Shri Sanjeev Agrawal.yanel Lawyer fiM-the StateA-espoadent No.3. WMT PETmONUNDERARriGLE 227 OE THE CONSTITlJTraON€)FINDlA ORALORBER (07.09^.20il0) Witfa Ite consent ofleamed counsd aiyearing fbr Ifae parties, the matteris heaiAfinally. (2) Challenge m llus writ petitioa is to the ordCT Appellate Gourt allown% the application filed by Ifae respondeut No.l uader Qrder 41Ruk27ofCPGa;iKttakh%addttionalevideDeeQnrecQTd. (3) Durmg pendency offhe first q^eU, tfw q)peUaidA'espondent NQ.I movedanappUcatKmunderOi^41Rule27Qfercalongwith^^^ revemiere<XM^infonuofievenuemap,tw<^ofri^ khasrapaachshalaof'titeyear 2002-2003, no dues catifieate, onler siheet ofTaBMldarI^shd^dateA29/07/2<^,recorfofrights/ldiiB^ ^of the year 1998-1999 aadliae proelamation issued Iqr •flae Tahstldm, Kashdol. > i c^ ri (4) While consideringthe applicaticui, Ifae leamedFirst ^(pellate Court has not at all addressed itselftoAe nature offhe document, the facts ofthe case and as to vrfiy these documents would be necessary for propM- and ^foctwe adjudication oftfae sroeaL The Api»llateCourt has alkwed the applicationmEpiteoffindingthatlfaeappeUanthasnotassignedanyreason in his appUcation as to why the docummts couldnot besiubnutted before thetrialcourt. (5) OnUnarily, an ai^lication undCT Or^ 41 Rule27 af^ fw sutMnitting additional evidence- is deeided al<mg vrith flie q)peal itselC Howeyer, the ^»pellate Court has allowed the application even without summoning fhe reeord ofthe trial court. (6) In tiie opimon of Ais cour4 •the Fiist A%)ellate Court has not exet^sedjurisdictioneohfeCTedup<MiitW^erOrder47 Rule27 ofCPC in a proper manner and has conanitted a serious illegality while allowmg Ihe said applicatimi. (7) Themgmgp^ ordernee<feto1iemterferedu^ Constitution oflndia.it isfhussetaside. (8) TliereSpimdentNo.l would be at liberty to move a dyly constitorted ai^lication afissh before trial eourt eiiplaining Ifae reasons as to -why the documeut was not subtmtted before fhe trid court and if any such appUcation is filed, the samesbaUbecc^ida^ maccwdance v^lawa^ Ifaetimeofdecidinglfae.fiTstqipealitself. , (9) WithtiusolAervalion.tliepetitionsfandsdismissed. prasha01^£mar^bra JiidgP >