1 7420-cw-2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR O R D E R Rameshwar vs. District Judge, Jaipur & ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7420/2006 under Articles 227 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order ::::::::::: 9th December, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI Mr. Ramrikh Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. Banwari Sharma for the respondent. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.8.2006 passed by District Judge, Jaipur District whereby application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner filed a suit for eviction and mesne profit in the year 1992 which was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 31st March, 2000 on the ground that the petitioner could not prove his ownership and possession over the disputed property as well as tenancy or encroachment of the defendant over the disputed premises. The petitioner filed appeal against the judgment of the trial Court and during pendency of 2 7420-cw-2006 appeal the petitioner filed application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC on 28.10.2005 and submitted that the petitioner pleaded ownership over the disputed premises and further pleaded that this was regularised by Tehsildar vide order dated 6.12.78 and further mentioned that he obtained copy of this order as well as site plan. He filed copies of regularisation as well as site plan in the High Court in the writ petition before 31.3.2000 so these documents could not be filed in the trial Court, hence, the aforesaid documents alongwith certified copy of this Court's order dated 19.2.2005 and copy of Collector's order dated 30.3.2005 may be taken on record. After hearing arguments application was rejected on the ground that at the time of filing suit the petitioner was having knowledge of aforesaid documents, but he did not choose to produce these documents before the trial Court. It was further mentioned that no ground for not producing these documents in the trial Court has been shown in the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of best efforts he could not get copies of aforesaid documents so these documents could not be produced before the trial Court. He also placed reliance on judgment of Apex Court in Wadi vs. Amilal & 3 7420-cw-2006 ors.reported in 2002 WLC (SC), 726 in which it was held that in admitting additional evidence in appeal under Clause (b) of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC vigilance or negligence of party is irrelevant and if the document throws light on germane issue, appellate Court must allow such document as additional evidence. In the present case the appellate Court has no where observed that these documents are required to enable it to pronounce judgment or these documents are required for any other substantial cause. In such circumstances, the aforesaid judgment does not help to the petitioner and the appellate Court has rightly rejected the application. As per pleadings and application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, petitioner was in possession of these documents, but he did not produce these documents before the trial Court for the reasons best known to him. In application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC he has not given any specific date when copies of these documents were filed in this Court in another writ petition. In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner was precluded from filing these documents in the trial Court before judgment inspite of due diligence or vigilence. As far certified copy of this Court's order dated 19.2.2005 and copy of order dated 4 7420-cw-2006 30.3.2005 passed by the Collector is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner does not insist on taking these documents on record and he has confined arguments only to the extent of order of regularisation dated 6.12.78 and site plan which cannot be permitted to be taken on record at appellate stage as the petitioner himself has chosen not to produce these documents before the trial Court though he was in possession of these documents. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (K.S.CHAUDHARI) J teekam