State of Rajasthan Vs. T.N. Sahani & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5863 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7073/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7073/1999)
Petitioner: State of Rajasthan
Respondent: T.N. Sahani & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5863 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7073/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7073/1999)
Judges: SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 10, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 41, Rule 27 and Order 6, Rule 17 – Additional evidence – Pendency of appeal – Amendment application for amending memo of appeal – Rejection of said application – Also application under Order 41, Rule 27 dismissed as amendment, in respect of docu-ment sought to be placed on record, stood rejected – Justifica-tion. Held that application under Order 41, Rule 27 should have been decided along with appeal. Orders set aside and application restored for decision with appeal.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 41, Rule 27 and Order 6, Rule 17 – Additional evidence – Pendency of appeal – Amendment application for amending memo of appeal – Rejection of said application – Also application under Order 41, Rule 27 dismissed as amendment, in respect of docu-ment sought to be placed on record, stood rejected – Justifica-tion. Held that application under Order 41, Rule 27 should have been decided along with appeal. Orders set aside and application restored for decision with appeal.
Held:
This is entirely for the Court to consider, at the time of hear-ing of the appeal on merits, whether the documents which are sought to be filed as additional evidence, need to be looked into to pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. If that be so, it is always open to the Court to look into the documents and for that purpose, amended provision of Order 41, Rule 27 (b) C.P.C. can be invoked. So the application under Order 41 Rule 27 should have been decided along with the appeal. Had the Court found the documents necessary to pronounce the judgment in the appeal in a more satisfactory manner, it would have allowed the same; if not, the same would have been dismissed at that stage. But taking a view on the application before hearing of the ap-peal, would be inappropriate. (Para 4)
Cases Reffered:
1. K. Venkataramiah v. Seetharama Reddy (AIR 1963 SC 1526) (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave is granted.
2. The State of Rajasthan is in appeal against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, passed on an application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. in SBCMA 413/91. We are not adverting to the merits of the case because the matter has to be decided by the High Court. Suffice it to mention that the said application under Order 41, Rule 27 as well as another applica-tion under Order 6, Rule 17 praying for amendment of the grounds of appeal, were filed by the appellant in the said appeal before the High Court.
3. The application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 came to be dis-missed. Taking that aspect into consideration, the High Court dismissed the application under Order 41, Rule 27 also as in its view, where the amendment application of the appellant, seeking amendment of the Memorandum of Appeal in respect of the documents sought to be placed on records, was disallowed, “How can the said documents be required for pronouncing the judgment or for any other substantial cause”.
4. It may be pointed out that this Court, as long back as in 1963 in K. Venkataramiah v. Seetharama Reddy (AIR 1963 SC 1526), pointed out the scope of unamended provision of Order 41, Rule 27(c) that though there might well be cases where even though the Court found that it was able to pronounce the judgment on the state of the record as it was, and so, it could not require additional evidence to enable it to pronounce the judgment, it still considered that in the interest of justice something which remained obscure should be filled up so that it could pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. This is entirely for the Court to consider, at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits, whether the documents which are sought to be filed as additional evidence, need to be looked into to pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. If that be so, it is always open to the Court to look into the documents and for that purpose, amended provision of Order 41, Rule 27 (b), C.P.C. can be invoked. So the application under Order 41, Rule 27 should have been decided along with the appeal. Had the Court found the documents necessary to pronounce the judgment in the appeal in a more satisfactory manner, it would have allowed the same; if not, the same would have been dismissed at that stage. But taking a view on the application before hearing of the appeal, in our view, would be inappropriate. Further the reason given for the dismissal of the application is untenable. The order under chal-lenge cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The application is restored to its file. The High Court will now consider the appeal and the application and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.
5. In view of the fact that the appeal arises out of acquisition proceedings initiated in 1969, we expect the High Court to give priority and dispose of the appeal and the application expe-ditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appeal is accord-ingly allowed. No costs.
1. Leave is granted.
2. The State of Rajasthan is in appeal against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, passed on an application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. in SBCMA 413/91. We are not adverting to the merits of the case because the matter has to be decided by the High Court. Suffice it to mention that the said application under Order 41, Rule 27 as well as another applica-tion under Order 6, Rule 17 praying for amendment of the grounds of appeal, were filed by the appellant in the said appeal before the High Court.
3. The application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 came to be dis-missed. Taking that aspect into consideration, the High Court dismissed the application under Order 41, Rule 27 also as in its view, where the amendment application of the appellant, seeking amendment of the Memorandum of Appeal in respect of the documents sought to be placed on records, was disallowed, “How can the said documents be required for pronouncing the judgment or for any other substantial cause”.
4. It may be pointed out that this Court, as long back as in 1963 in K. Venkataramiah v. Seetharama Reddy (AIR 1963 SC 1526), pointed out the scope of unamended provision of Order 41, Rule 27(c) that though there might well be cases where even though the Court found that it was able to pronounce the judgment on the state of the record as it was, and so, it could not require additional evidence to enable it to pronounce the judgment, it still considered that in the interest of justice something which remained obscure should be filled up so that it could pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. This is entirely for the Court to consider, at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits, whether the documents which are sought to be filed as additional evidence, need to be looked into to pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. If that be so, it is always open to the Court to look into the documents and for that purpose, amended provision of Order 41, Rule 27 (b), C.P.C. can be invoked. So the application under Order 41, Rule 27 should have been decided along with the appeal. Had the Court found the documents necessary to pronounce the judgment in the appeal in a more satisfactory manner, it would have allowed the same; if not, the same would have been dismissed at that stage. But taking a view on the application before hearing of the appeal, in our view, would be inappropriate. Further the reason given for the dismissal of the application is untenable. The order under chal-lenge cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The application is restored to its file. The High Court will now consider the appeal and the application and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.
5. In view of the fact that the appeal arises out of acquisition proceedings initiated in 1969, we expect the High Court to give priority and dispose of the appeal and the application expe-ditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appeal is accord-ingly allowed. No costs.
