Full Judgment
Sunil Kumar versus Hardeo Yadav & Anr Writ Petition No.1333 / 2014 27.1.2014 Shri Udai Raj Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Challenging an interlocutory order passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Satna in M.C.A.No.18/2012 in the matter of taking on record certain documents filed by way of additional evidence in a proceeding held under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Respondents plaintiffs had filed the suit in question for declaration and injunction.
Along with suit an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was filed.
This application was rejected by the trial court vide order Annexure P-3 dated 28.8.2012 and against this revision order a misc.
appeal has been filed which is pending in the court of 4 th Additional District Judge Satna.
In the pending appeal it seems that an application of taking certain documents on record had been filed by the plaintiffs respondents under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and initial the court ordered that the application for taking additional evidence shall be considered at the time of final hearing.
When the case was taken up for final hearing and orders have been passed on the final hearing of the appeal the learned court before passing orders on the merit of appeal fiRs.take up the application under Order Sunil Kumar versus Hardeo Yadav & Anr 41 Rule 27 CPC and by the impugned order 13.12.2013 came to the conclusion that as the documents filed by way of additional evidence has certain relevance with regard to possession and decision on the suit property, which was necessary to be considered and, therefore, postponing the final decision on the appeal, the documents have been taken on record.
The defendant namely petitioner herein has been granted opportunity to give documents in rebuttal or evidence in rebuttal and matter is adjourned.
Learned counsel submits that without passing final orders on the appeal and postponing decision, error is committed by the learned court below, this writ petition is filed.
Even though learned counsel brought to the notice of this court a judgment rendered in the case of Reg.
Vidhichand Dharamshala Trust, Gwalior versus Shyam Singh & ORS.2010(3) MPLJ428 Having heard learned counsel for the parties I see no error in the order passed.
Whenever at the appellate stage additional evidence is adduced in a proceeding under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, if the court finds that the additional evidence adduced is relevant for decision in the case and accordingly opportunity is granted to the other side to give material in rebuttal before considering the evidence, no error is committed by the court.
Sunil Kumar versus Hardeo Yadav & Anr Keeping in view the aforesaid, I am of the considered view that the order in question cannot be termed as perverse, erroneous or illegal to such an extent that interference at this interlocutory stage in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for.
Accordingly, finding no ground, the petition is dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge ss