Ganpat Lal Vs. Basti Ram - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
civil procedure code - order 41, rule 27 and order 43, rule 2--additional evidence--production of--stage of producing documents not passed--held, rule 27 cannot be made applicable to appeals under order 43.;the stage for producing documents has not passed. as such rule 27 cannot be made applicable to appeals under order 43.;revision rejected - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. mohini kapoor, j.1. the learned addl. district judge, beawar has refused to admit documents in a miscellaneous appeal deciding that the previsions of order 41, rule 27, cpc. are applicable only to regular appeals and not to miscellaneous appeals. this view of the learned addl. district judge has been challenged.2. order 43, rules 2, cpc provides that the rules of order 41 shall apply so far as may be to appeals from orders. thus it is to be seen whether rule 27 of order 41 can be said to be applicable to appeals against orders. the suit is at an initial stage and it is open to the petitioner plaintiff to produce the documents he desires to produce in the suit. rule 27 of order 41 becomes applicable only when additional evidence is required to be produced after a decree has been passed. thus the nature of rule 27 is such that it provides for admitting additional evidence at a late stage. in the present case, the stage for producing documents has not passed. as such rule 27 cannot be made applicable to appeals under order 43. there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned addl. district judge. the petitioner can produce the document before the lower court. this revision petition is rejected.