Source: https://www.lawweb.in/2018/07/whether-court-permit-production-of.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:00:42+00:00

Document:
Law Web: Whether court permit production of pleadings of earlier litigation as additional evidence?
What has been held in the aforesaid judgments is that if the court finds that the documents sought to be produced in additional evidence are relevant to decide the real issue in controversy and further the court feels that interest of justice requires that the documents may be received and the kinds of documents are such, the authenticity of which cannot be disputed, the same may be allowed to be produced in additional evidence. If the facts of the present case are considered in the light of the judgments, referred to above, the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner by way of additional evidence are none else but the pleadings in the earlier litigation pertaining to the same subject-matter. There is no chance of its fabrication at this stage.
2. The suit filed by respondent No. 1 having been dismissed, he preferred appeal before the learned court below. In appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was filed seeking permission to lead additional evidence to produce on record certified copy of the plaint in Civil Suit No. 12 of 2001, titled as "Jai Ram v. Ram Niwas". decided on 27.4.2002, certified copy of Civil Suit No. 679 of 2000 filed on 15.12.2000 by Ram Niwas against Jai Ram and written statement filed by Jai Ram and the agreement to sell in Civil Suit No. 315/RT of 2001 instituted on 14.5.2001, titled as "Smt. Sushila v. Jai Ram and others",. The learned court below after considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties accepted the application vide impugned order dated 15.12.2008 and permitted respondent No. 1 to prove the documents in question by way of additional evidence. It is this order, which is impugned in the present petition.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the case set up by respondent No. 1 for permitting him to lead additional evidence at the appellate stage was clearly made out in terms of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The conditions laid down therein are fully satisfied. It is not that all the conditions prescribed are to be fulfilled collectively. Even if either of them is satisfied, the party can be permitted to lead additional evidence. The subject-matter of pending litigation is the adoption of petitioner by respondent No. 2 and a release deed executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of the petitioner. The civil suits, the pleadings of which have been permitted to be produced by way of additional evidence, are also pertaining to the same dispute. In those suits, the parties have made certain admissions, which would be relevant for decision of the present suit. Even if respondent No. 1 had knowledge about two suits, as has been pleaded in the plaint, but still non production thereof at the trial stage will not be fatal and he can always be permitted to produce these documents on record at the appellate stage by way of additional evidence. Civil Suit No. 315/RT of 2001 titled as "Smt. Sushila v. Jai Ram and others", was not in knowledge of respondent No. 1 as there is no pleading to that effect in the plaint. Once it is established that the documents, which have been permitted to be produced in additional evidence have relevance in pending lis and further there is no chance of fabrication thereof as these are nothing else but certified copies of the pleadings filed by the parties in other litigation, no illegality has been committed by the court below while permitting respondent No. 1 to prove these documents by way of additional evidence. In support of his contentions, reliance was placed upon Smt. Bhulia Devi v. Smt. Sheela Devi, (1998-3) 120 P.L.R. 363; M/s Amba Maa Mills v. Haryana State Indl. Dev. Corpn. and another, MANU/PH/0441/2007 : 2007(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 637 and Gurdial Singh and others v. Mam Chand and others, (2011-1)161 P.L.R. 31.
8. In Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy and another v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy and others, MANU/SC/0748/1994 : (1994)4 S.C.C. 659, Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that if the documents are found to be relevant to decide the real issue in controversy and when the court feels that interest of justice requires that the documents may be received, exercising the power under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the appellate court would receive those documents and consider the effect thereof. However, an opportunity be given for rebuttal, if any, and their relevance and effect be considered in deciding the issues arising in controversy.
9. In Smt. Bhulia Devi's case (supra), this court while considering the fact that a document which goes to the root of the case and is relevant for proper adjudication of the case can be permitted to be produced on record by way of additional evidence even at the appellate stage even if there was some negligence. The order permitting the party to produce the same was upheld. To similar effect is the judgment of this court in M/s Amba Maa Mills' case (supra).
5. The afore-mentioned provision have been subject-matter of interpretation of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy and others, MANU/SC/0243/1963 : A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1526; Natha Singh v. The Financial Commissioner, Taxation, MANU/SC/0489/1976 : A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1053; Land Acquisition Officer v. H. Narayanaiah etc., MANU/SC/0382/1976 : A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2403 and P. Purushottam Reddy and another v. Pratap Steels Ltd, (2002(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 70 (S.C.):MANU/SC/0054/2002 : 2002(2) S.C.C. 686. On the basis of the afore-mentioned judgments it can be concluded that the Ld. Additional District Judge while hearing the appeal under Section 96 of the (sic) enjoys adequate power to allow additional evidence if such evidence is required to enable him to pronounce the judgment. He can also allow the additional evidence for any other substantial cause advancing administration of justice. The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Vishnu Iron and Steel Industries's case (supra) on which reliance has been placed has also concluded that the first appellate court has adequate power to allow additional evidence if such evidence is necessary to pronounce the judgment.
14. Again in K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy and others, MANU/SC/0243/1963 : A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1526 a Constitution Bench of this court while reiterating the afore-noted observations in Parsotim's case (supra), pointed out that the appellate court has the power to allow additional evidence not only if it requires such evidence 'to enable it to pronounce judgment' but also for 'any other substantial cause'. There may well be cases where even though the court finds that it is able to pronounce judgment on the state of the record as it is, and so, it cannot strictly say that it requires additional evidence 'to enable it to pronounce judgment', it still considers that in the interest of justice something which remains obscure should be filled up so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. Thus, the question whether looking into the documents, sought to be filed as additional evidence, would be necessary to pronounce judgment in a more satisfactory manner, has to be considered by the court at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits.
12. It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the first appeal before the First Appellate Court, the appellants had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the CPC for permission to lead additional evidence for the purpose of producing jamabandis for the years 1963-64, 1969-70, 1974-75 and 1979-80, but the said application was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra on 14.02.2007 on the ground that the said documents were within the knowledge of the appellants earlier, therefore, in terms of Order 41 Rule 27(1)(aa) of the CPC, they were not allowed to lead additional evidence in appeal. In this case, the appellants have also challenged the said order dated 14.02.2007 passed by the First Appellate Court by which their application for leading additional evidence was dismissed. It may also be clarified that the application for leading additional evidence was dismissed on the same day when the main appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court. The first question, which is to be decided by this Court, is as to "whether the First Appellate Court should have or should not have allowed the application for additional evidence because learned counsel for the appellants has placed heavy reliance upon the jamabandis Annexures P-2 to P-5 in order to show that they were in possession of the land in dispute as tenants.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.